Tag: sam mendes

Why Parasite’s win is important

Post author By Nicola
Post date 15 February 2020
No Comments on Why Parasite’s win is important

Going into the 92nd Academy Awards, it seemed that pretty much every category was a lock. Joaquin Phoenix was favoured to take home the Best Actor gong for Joker, Renee Zellweger winning Best Actress for Judy and Sam Mendes was the strong favourite to win Best Director for 1917 with the latter ultimately winning Best Picture. How much the Academy surprised us then when the Best Director trophy was awarded to Bong Joon-ho for Parasite and then his film won the Best Picture award, beating the odds. Personally I was very happy as I had placed a bet on Parasite to win so there was a monetary reward for myself but the happiness goes to another more serious level. 1917 is a prime example of a quintessential award film. Don’t get me wrong, 1917 is a brilliant film that is full of revolutionary technical achievement, particularly Roger Deakins’ cinematography but it is no secret that the Academy and other Western award bodies have a love affair with war films. So much so that it has become a running joke in the film industry that to win awards, you have to make or star in a war film.

For those who are not in the know, Parasite is a Korean film exploring classism and inequality in a society that only benefits the rich and leaves those poorer to live in the gutter (quite literally). It has been the source of much hype since its premiere at last year’s Cannes Film Festival where it won the top prize, the Palme d’Or, in a rare unanimous vote, marking the first Korean film to win the prestigious award. Korean cinema is among the best in the world and has been a leading institution for years for filmmakers and film lovers and it felt like it was finally getting its due in the mainstream. Bong Joon-ho has previously delved into English-language with Snowpiercer (2013) and Okja (2017) which have become much-loved modern classics and released to acclaim; however, I think it’s poignant that Bong’s ascendance to the global audience has come from a Korean-language film that explores Korean society. It is very much detached from Western society in both its subject matter and filmmaking technique, allowing Bong to direct without the restrictions that Western studios demand. The fact that a film like Parasite, a film that is inherently unique in its style and content can beat a film like 1917 shows that there is an appetite for a different kind of film experience. It also shows a promising step forward in what audiences now expect. Naturally, franchises such as the Marvel and DC films still top the box office but Parasite concrete proof that people want more variety in the cinemas as well. Parasite’s subsequent box office success after its award wins confirms this. Now that it’s been given the chance to screen in more cinemas, it’s been able to demonstrate that there is an audience who want to watch foreign-language films, snubbing the assumption that Western audiences don’t want to watch films with subtitles.

There are many people who dismiss award season as pointless and dim, viewing it as celebrities patting themselves on the back. I don’t think it is as simple as that though. The truth is people do pay attention to awards season and follow the films that are successful. Of course, a lot of time there are the usual suspects who are nominated time and time again, sometimes undeservedly but when you have a film like Parasite that isn’t given the same chance as a mediocre English-language film then the exposure that award season brings is crucial for the film’s box office success.

Overall, there were some brilliant films this award season but Parasite was the clear standout. The fact that it won the major awards is a sign that the Academy is looking at artistic merit and not just succumbing to making it a popularity contest. Parasite’s win may not seem significant but the importance cannot be understated. Hopefully this will spark the beginning of an awards body that seeks to be more inclusive and diverse, giving all films an equal chance.

Here are my reviews for some of the films of the 92nd Academy Awards:

Winners: 1917, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, Judy, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite, Toy Story 4

Nominees: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Bombshell, The Irishman, The Lighthouse, The Two Popes

Snubs: Dolemite Is My Name, Hustlers, Midsommar, Uncut Gems

What did you think of Parasite’s winning streak at the Oscars? Let me know in the comments below!

Uncategorised

Parasite (2019)

The most original film to come out of this year’s award season, Bong Joon-ho’s Korean masterpiece Parasite which can only be described as brilliantly bizarre. Since its premiere at Cannes Film Festival, the film world has been abuzz for this film. It subsequently took home the prestigious Palme d’Or beating out Quentin Tarantino’s mainstream favourite Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (you can read my review here) and has become a huge favourite this awards season, breaking the mold by being the first Korean film nominated for major awards. Particularly for non-English language films, Parasite has managed to achieve the impossible but it has done so for a reason. Joon-ho’s flawless mix of genres means that you cannot really place Parasite within a particular set. It is a perfect mix of drama, comedy, horror and thriller while also discussing a variety of topics including classism and gender. Parasite refuses to conform and because of this, it stands out as one of the most original pieces of the 21st century.

The film follows the Kim family made up of father Kim Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho), mother Chung-sook (Chang Hyae-jin), son Kim Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) and daughter Kim Ki-jeong (Park So-dam) as they struggle to make ends meet by working temporary jobs that pay little and are living in a semi-basement that is constantly subject to flooding, public urination and fumigation. When Ki-woo is given the opportunity to work as an English tutor to a daughter of the affluent Park family, the Kim family concoct a plan to create jobs for themselves in the stylish household thus earning a decent wage and living the high life themselves as the Park family’s household grows evermore unstable. On the other side, there is the Park family consisting of father Park Dong-ik (Lee Sun-kyun), mother Yeon-gyo (Cho Yeo-jeong), daughter Park Da-hye (Jeong Ji-so) and son Park Da-song (Jung Hyeon-jun) and their housekeeper Gook Moon-gwang (Lee Jung-eun). It is a film that presents the extreme balance of classism from either side with the housekeeper acting as the literal and figurative gatekeeper in the middle.

Joon-ho’s direction feels unique and innovative as he manipulates setting and space to create an alternative universe within a very grounded and real place. The physical placement of the Kim family’s house being below the ground and the Park’s mansion placed high up on a hill creates a physical hierarchy. The airy, spacious setting and architectural minimalism of the Park home screams luxury and relaxation which is a stark contrast to the crammed and narrow corridors of the Kim basement where the toilet sits on a higher level to the rest of the bathroom. Joon-ho’s decision to only show the two homes as primary location only exemplifies the issues of class and belonging even more. It is no surprise that it is the smell of the basement that lingers with the Kim family and creates a separation between the two families. Despite being treated as such, they can never truly be equals. Joon-ho’s script, co-written with Han Jin-won is sharp and natural. They know when the film benefits from minimal dialogue and when to create chaos as the two families clash. As mentioned before, the film is a mix of many genres and doesn’t really have a place within one category. This isn’t a bad thing at all because in a way, it has shown Joon-ho’s skill as a filmmaker.

The main cast capture the film perfectly. One particular highlight is Song Kang-ho who brings a phenomenal performance as the Kim patriarch Kim Ki-taek who finds work as the Park family driver, mainly working for the family patriarch Park Dong-ik. He doesn’t hesitate to manipulate the Park family and take advantage of the luxury lifestyle but becomes deeply affected and paranoid when the comments of the Kim family smell arise. It is these moments that ground Ki-taek and make him realise that the lifestyle they think they are living is only an illusion. Despite their hardest efforts, they cannot rid the stench of the basement. Aside from being a film that explores the differences in class, it also does a great job at showing acceptance and place of belonging. Ki-taek doesn’t wish to change anything really and eventually begins to despise Dong-ik. Choi Woo-shik also brings his A game as Ki-woo, a young man who aspires to get out of his current situation. Working as Da-Hye’s English tutor gives him an insight into the life that he wants but not all is as it seems. Ki-woo starts a web of lies as he manages to coerce his employers to hire members of his family without them realising.

parasite3

Parasite is a fantastically bonkers film bursting to the seams with originality and I hope it triumphs at the Oscars and wins the major awards. As much as I did enjoy Sam Mendes’ frontrunner 1917 (you can read my review here), Parasite is a film that brought more to the table and something different. Not only would it be an incredible moment for film history to see a Korean film sweep some major awards that are often excluded to English-language films only (insert Roma snub here). The hype that Parasite has generated is truly deserving and it’s great to see that it is connecting with a global audience.

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

Uncategorised

1917 (2019)

1917 is a World War I epic that seems to be the one to beat when it comes to the Best Picture award. Co-written, directed and produced by Sam Mendes, the film acts as a tribute to his grandfather, Alfred Mendes, based on stories that he would tell about the war. Following two young soldiers, Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are tasked with travelling across enemy lines to warn off a British attack before they fall into a trap set by the Germans. The film has become well-regarded for its flawless editing, designed to look like two continuous shots. As well as beautiful technique, 1917 also boasts a stunning cast that includes well-loved actor of the big screen such as Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch as well as TV favourites such as Daniel Mays and Andrew Scott. As expected, Mendes delivers and the continuous shots and editing only exemplify the non-stop nature of war. There is only one point in which the audience is allowed to relax at the start of the third act of the film. The writing is simple as Mendes lays focus on the physicality and the atmosphere rather than the dialogue. There are few monologues and those with speeches such as Andrew Scott’s Lieutenant Leslie are at rare moments of stand still. Co-written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the script is minimalist in dialogue. Even when following the two Lance Corporals on their journey, we never really hear Schofield’s backstory because he is so withdrawn. One brilliant scene is when Schofield is picked up by a passing British unit and they are sat in the back of a truck. Schofield sits silently as the soldiers around him comment on their various backgrounds, imitate their General and comment on whether occupying other countries is worth the damage. It’s a poignant scene which brings in a humane aspect that is often missing from World War films.

The performances are impressive, particularly by George MacKay who is always on camera. He carries the film in the same way that he carries the message to the troops. It is no easy feat as an actor to hold so much pressure from such a big film but MacKay has shown promise from the early days in his career and his subsequent breakout performances in Pride (2014) and Captain Fantastic (2016). 1917 exploits MacKay to a mainstream audience that he won’t have been subject to in such a way previously. His Lance Corporal Schofield is reluctant to go on the mission and keeps his cards close to his chest but his determination to see it through is fearless, particularly in the final scenes as he runs through the trenches. Schofield and Blake appear to have different takes for their mission at the beginning. Blake is insistent on setting off immediately whereas Schofield logically believes in waiting until dark. Because of the emotional stake that Blake has in the mission (his brother is among the troops heading into the trap), Schofield has to ensure that Blake’s heart doesn’t lead his head.

The two protagonists balance each other out as Blake risks his own life to save Schofield when a bomb is set off in a German trench. Chapman is also fantastic as Blake who appears naïve due to his sentimental nature. When encountering a German soldier whose plane was shot down in a dogfight, Blake’s gut reaction is to assist and get the soldier some water to ease the pain whereas Schofield doesn’t hesitate to shoot at the enemy. As mentioned before, the supporting cast is littered with stars from the small and silver screens. Admittedly, the supporting cast are granted one scene each so it’s more of a cameo, but each actor makes the most of their moments. Andrew Scott particularly delivers a brilliant monologue as a Lieutenant who has little hope in winning the war whereas Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel Mackenzie views he retreat from battle as a sign of defeat. The fleeting appearances from the supporting characters is thanks to the perfectly linear narrative of the film itself. We see the two Lance Corporals setting off to warn the Devonshire Regiment and ending with Schofield sat beside a tree in a mirror image of the opening shot.

It would be a big misjustice not to mention the revolutionary cinematography and editing provided by Roger Deakins and Lee Smith, respectively. Both men are at the top of the game in their respected fields and they work fantastically as a team. What these men have managed to achieve feels as claustrophobic and in your face as the war itself. There are many comments from people saying that the continuous effect took some getting used to but for me it felt natural and flowed perfectly. The editing is in a similar vein to the technique used in Birdman but on a bigger scale. What Deakins does so brilliantly is simultaneously provide big explosions shots filled with action while also maintaining great focus on the individual protagonists’ faces. Despite everything that is going on around the soldiers, the audiences’ eyes are fixated on the characters. Deakins’ colour palette is muted as expected in a war film with greens and browns. There are no exaggerated colours or futuristic spectacles. Deakins ensures that the film is very much grounded in its reality. Together, Deakins and Smith manage to create a film that is visually captivating and stunning, making the best use of the environment given and its limited landscapes.

On the musical side of things, Thomas Newman’s score for this film is beyond incredible and has deservedly earned him his 15th Academy Award nomination. This year has seen a strong competition in the score category with both Thomas and Randy Newman pulling punches for their scores for 1917 and Marriage Story, respectively. Undoubtedly, the Best Original Score gong will go to Hildur Guðnadóttir for her stellar work on Joker making her the first woman to walk away with the award. It shouldn’t go unnoticed, however, that Thomas Newman’s score is among his best. Much like the editing, the film is reliant on its score which acts like a thread connecting the scenes. Needless to say, if Newman does end up winning, I wouldn’t be disappointed.

Overall, 1917 has proven to be a much better film than I had originally anticipated and I found myself moved and stunned by the technical and artistic achievement that Mendes has managed to pull off. I’m not sure if it’s a film that you need to watch more than once as I personally got everything out of the film that I needed in one go. I imagine that in time, it will become renowned and known for its technical aspects and the uniqueness in that field rather than the characters.

What do you think of 1917? Let me know in the comments below!

Uncategorised

Top 5 Kate Winslet Performances

Post author By Nicola
Post date 13 September 2019
No Comments on Top 5 Kate Winslet Performances

After writing my post on Leonardo DiCaprio (which you can read here), it only makes sense to follow this on with a post on his most famous co-star, Kate Winslet. Following a meteoric rise during the 1990s, she also was nominated for a ton of Academy Awards before finally landing one in 2008. Her extensive resume has seen her play in period pieces, quirky indies and big-budget blockbusters. Winslet has become synonymous with the great British actresses of all time and is certainly among the best actresses working today.

Compiling a list of my top 5 performances was tricky because I knew instantly what they were; however, they come from the rise and peak of career so the last instalment is 2008. That isn’t to say that she hasn’t done good films since (the HBO series Mildred Pierce and Danny Boyle’s 2015 film Steve Jobs are proof of this) but these are the performances that stand out to me.

Here are my top 5 in chronological order:

Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Peter Jackson’s graphic retelling of the controversial Parker-Hulme murders shows the imagination of two teenage friends as they descend into madness and fix fantasy and reality. Melanie Lynskey plays working-class Pauline Parker and Kate Winslet plays the affluent Juliet Hulme. Proving her acting chops at a young age, Winslet commands the screen as sickly Juliet. Winslet is magnetic in her role as a neglected teen, crumbling in the aftermath of her parents’ travelling, her fight with tuberculosis and her parents’ eventual divorce and lack of love for their daughter. She creates a world with working-class Pauline and together the two become completely entwined in their fantasyland known as Borovnia where artists are celebrated and religion is frowned upon. We see the girls become violently inseparable as reality and fantasy become one until the film’s horrific conclusion. The film catapulted Winslet into the public eye and served as a great debut that has made a lasting impact and showed how fearless an actor she is from a young age. Juliet is headstrong and has a brilliant imagination which is underlined with severe manipulation and a cruel nature.

Titanic (1997)

So I have spoken about my love for this film in my Leonardo DiCaprio post and yes, this is the quintessential Winslet performance. James Cameron’s masterpiece sees Winslet stars as aristocrat passenger, Rose Dewitt Bukater, on the doomed 1912 liner. It’s the modern classic blockbuster that brings tears to my eyes every time. Winslet’s performance brought her a second Oscar nomination (the first being for 1995’s Sense and Sensibility) and first for Best Actress in a Leading Role. Winslet is perfect in the role of Rose, a young privileged woman crippled by the expectations of society. She longs for freedom and finds it when she meets the carefree, Jack (DiCaprio), a working-class artist who got his ticket through a lucky game of poker. They go through a lifetime of love within the space of a few days before the ship’s fate is sealed. We see Rose evolve throughout the film as the first act sees her trapped and unhappily engaged to Cal (Billy Zane) to finding love and freedom with Jack (DiCaprio) and the final act sees her lose that love but keeping her freedom. Rose’s evolution to unshackle herself from the expectations of society is a testament to Winslet’s ability to show Rose as more than a damsel in distress.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

This film marked a huge turn in Winslet’s resume as she has become known for starring in period films. Charlie Kaufman’s insanely brilliant Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind follows the hopeless Joel (Jim Carrey) as he becomes enamoured with the mysterious and colourful Clementine (Winslet). When their relationship falls apart, Clementine goes to the controversial Lacuna Incorporated where people have their memories swiped of a specific person to rid . Joel attempts to do the same towards Clementine but tries to resist as he longs to hold onto the memories. The film is quirky, confusing and dazzling. It won the Academy Award for his brilliant screenplay and Winslet gained her third Oscar nomination. Clementine is deeply flawed but she is full of wonder and is a perfect opposite to Joel’s constant pessimism. Whereas Joel’s memory erasure comes out of malice for Clementine, hers came from the sadness of living a life in sadness. She is on a constant push to find belonging and love. I remember seeing this film for the first time and being mesmerised by Winslet’s performance. The character of Clementine is among my favourites of all time (as I discussed in my post on women in film which you can read here).

The Reader (2008)

The film that finally bagged Winslet the Oscar, The Reader is a World War II period film following a young teenager, Michael (David Kross), as he becomes involved in an affair with an older illiterate woman, Hanna Schmitz (Winslet), who is eventually arrested and tried for her involvement with the Nazi party. The first act of the film shows the affair and then skips straight to the trial as Michael has read about Hanna’s arrest in the paper. As we only hear about Hanna’s crimes rather than seeing them in the film, we see the other guards from the camp coerce her into taking the full blame for signing a document that authorised a mass killing despite the fact that she is illiterate. Her humiliation in being illiterate forces her to accept that it is her signature and she is sentenced to life in prison. It’s a deeply complex performance that shows a human beneath a monster. We see Hanna deteriorate as she truly understands what happened in the camp and it begins to destroy her as she teaches herself to read and write. It’s as though Hanna functioned in her own world which we saw at the beginning of the film and as she learns to read and write, her world opens up and she realises that reality exists and suffers the consequences of her actions. Winslet won the Best Actress in Leading Role for this but I firmly believe that she should have won the Supporting Actress gong for this and the Lead for Revolutionary Road but sadly her performance in The Reader was classed as lead for some reason. It’s a supporting role but a bloody good one.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Now for the film that should have won Winslet the Leading Actress Oscar, Revolutionary Road reunites Winslet and DiCaprio for the adaptation of the novel that centres on the Wheeler family and their struggle to achieve the American Dream in the 1940s. Winslet plays April Wheeler, the failed actress who is stuck in a life as a stay-at-home mum. This film was among the most hyped of the year as it was also directed by Winslet’s then-husband Sam Mendes as well. The film itself is brilliant and passionate as we’re taken through the couple’s relationship from its hopeful start to its tragic end. The character of April is extremely interesting as she refuses to fit the template of the 1950s housewife. She gets a job as a secretary and saves up money to move to Paris to start a new life. Aside from the two leads, Michael Shannon provides a very intense performance as the Wheelers’ neighbour, John, who has recently been discharged from an asylum and his mother, Helen who is played brilliantly by Kathy Bates. April’s descent into hatred for herself and her life is a distressing one to watch but the performance is breath-taking.

It goes without saying that Winslet is one of my favourite all-time actresses and I am excited to see what future projects she takes part in. She demonstrates time and time again her amazing range and the strong women she chooses to portray.

What do you think? What are your favourite Winslet performances? Let me know in the comments below!