Tag: screenwriter

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!

Categories
Uncategorised

Top 5 Daniel Day-Lewis Performances

When it comes to listing the greatest actors in history, it would be pretty arrogant to not throw Daniel Day-Lewis’ name into the mix. The man puts the method in method acting and is renowned for his ability to truly become his characters. His refusal to break character offscreen or follow the typical hollywood lifestyle brings a sense of mystique to this genius who clearly has a passion for acting. Famously selective about his roles from early on in his career, he may not have the most extensive filmography but what is there is only the best and is full of brilliant collaborations with the best actors and directors.

He is the only actor to have won the Best Leading Actor Oscar three times and remains a titan in acting, even if he has retired (he has “retired” before and returned so who knows if this retirement will stick). Day-Lewis is in a league of his own when it comes to actors working today (the closest would probably be Joaquin Phoenix or Gary Oldman).

It’s been hard to pick top 5 but I have managed to do so. Here is my list of top 5 performances in chronological:

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985)

This early entry in Day-Lewis’ filmography is perhaps one of his most controversial. Made in 1985, Day-Lewis portrays Johnny Burfoot, a white Londoner who embarks on a romantic relationship with Omar Ali (Gordon Warnecke) who is struggling with his identity as a British-born gay man of Pakistani descent in volatile, racist Britain. The eeriness of this film comes in how relevant it feels today 35 years on. Stephen Frears refusing to bow to stereotype in this film, creating characters that are rounded and break the mould. In a general landscape that isolated homosexuals, My Beautiful Laundrette shows a relationship filled with adventure and excitement. The chemistry between the two leads is magnetic and it’s great to see a film about a gay couple that has a happy ending, something that is notoriously refused in the majority of mainstream LGBT+ cinema.

My Left Foot (1989)

The one that propelled Day-Lewis to stardom. Portraying disabled artist Christy Brown, Day-Lewis went full method for the role and refused to break character offscreen to channel the struggle of Brown’s experience with cerebral palsy. It brought Day-Lewis a global audience and his first Academy Award nomination and win. Christy is mischievous and hilarious, aiming to live his life to the fullest. A supporting cast led by Fiona Shaw who plaus Dr. EIleen Cole, Christy’s carer and Brenda Fricker as Bridget Fagan brown, Christy’s mother (who also won a Supporting ACtress Oscar for her performance) brings an authneticity to this low-budget Irish production. The film relies on the performance of its actors and refuses to use any Hollywood flares or special effects. This is a great introduction into the career of Daniel Day-Lewis and shows how capable and fearless he was from early in his career as well as providing an insight into what will become a flourishing and groundbreaking filmography.

Gangs of New York (2002)

The film that paired Day-Lewis up with Martin Scorsese for an epic that explores the conflict between Irish and Italian Americans. Based on a true story, it’s a film that explores what it takes to be a “true” American. In this nativist vs. immigrant plot, Day-Lewis plays William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting, a cruel leader of the nativist gang who refuse to allow the Irish settlers ownership on American land. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amstardam whose father Vallon (Liam Neeson) dies at the hands of Bill in the opening scene and seeks his revenge years later under his new alias. The film itself falls short of its potential due to its odd pacing and the overall scope of the film feeling too big for its three hour running time but Day-Lewis’ performance elevates it and makes it worth the watch. Bill is maniacal and devious with no redeeming quality but he is also extremely charismatic. It’s flamboyant and subtle at the same time. Only Day-Lewis could pull the performance off in this way.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

The role to end all roles. The character of Daniel Plainview is nothing short of iconic. Day-Lewis is on fire in this role as a greedy prospector who soughts to purchase land that sits on oil. The film deservedly won him his second Best Actor Academy Award and for good reason. It’s a brilliant performance that shows the true greed of mankind and how much they are willing to destroy in order to gain more power. This film marks his first collaboration with Paul Thomas Anderson and serves as a definite high point for both of their careers. They are a duo who click together so well with Anderson’s penchant for brilliant character development and Day-Lewis’ commitment to character is unlike any other. It’s the movie that gave us “I drink your milkshake” in what can only be described as one of the best film endings. Add Paul Dano to the supporting cast and you have one of the best combinations of a director/writer and cast seen in 21st century film.

Phantom Thread (2017)

Day-Lewis’ “final” role sees him reunite with Paul Thomas Anderson as a renowned couturier, Reynolds Woodcock, inspired by a culimation of designers including Charles James. He’s a man with an inpenetrable exterior that is soon challenged by a chance encounter with waitress, Alma (Vicky Krieps) who becomes his muse when his creativity wanes. They spark a professional and romantic relationship and his business starts booming again as Reynolds finds his inspiration to design. Always watched over by his eagle-eyed sister, Cyril (Lesley Manville), we see the highs and lows of Reynolds’ career and the challenges he faces when the sparks begin to fade. The character contrasts greatly with the previous Anderson outing. Reynolds is a more subdued character who can say just as much with a simple grimace or flourish of the hand in the same way that Daniel Plainview used his persuasive chat to manipulate. Day-Lewis was deservedly nominated for the major awards in what is a beautiful swansong to a brilliant career.

As you can see, there are many brilliant performances that didn’t make the list, in particular In The Name of the Father (1993) and Lincoln (2012), the latter of which won him his third Best Actor gong. It’s always difficult choosing my favourite performances but how do you do it when pretty much every performance is perfect? There really is no wrong answer when it comes to Daniel Day-Lewis as it is likely that you will feel impacted by his performances.

Which film is your favourite from Daniel Day-Lewis? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

“I have nothing left to give”: Anxiety in mother! and Midsommar

As I have discussed in a previous post, horror seems to the genre that directors are turning to to discuss important issues that may be seen as taboo. One topic in particular is mental health and in particular, anxiety, has be woven into the genre but in a way where it is more than a character worrying about monsters. Darren Aronofsky’s 2017 mother! and Ari Aster’s summer smash Midsommar both explore anxiety through the eyes of a female protagonist thrust into the centre and horror of a cult. They have a lot of similar traits but are shown in completely different ways. Both protagonists are 20-something white women in volatile relationships who are trying to create homes for themselves and find their purpose.

Both films are essentially about place and belonging. Home is integral and is the (literally in mother!) heart of the story. This is more explicitly so in mother! as we see the titular character (Jennifer Lawrence) renovating her house right before it descends into chaos at the hands of her husband, Him (Javier Bardem). Aronofsky’s brilliance as a director shines in this film as we never leave mother’s side. The house becomes a metaphor for mother and the anxiety that she feels is felt by the house itself. As the camera follows her, we get a literal female gaze of her home from being a place that she has literally and figuratively built to the remnants as it bursts into flames and destruction. mother’s anxiety comes from the claustrophobic portrayal as the home becomes increasingly invaded. It’s a heavy film that builds all of its emotion like the foundations of the house. We never leave the house because mother never leaves the house. She is physically and emotionally trapped by the relationship she is in. Building and renovating the house gives a false sense of control but Him has been pulling the strings the entire time. When she falls pregnant and becomes increasingly stressed, the shots become longer and strained. The film is an unflinching look at the invasive nature of anxiety and the struggle that it brings. It’s a not-so-subtle allegory for the Bible but it elevates this experience and becomes an unhinged tale of manipulation and control resulting in a climax that spirals out of Him’s control and becomes bigger than the vision he planned. This is due, in part, to mother’s reluctance to go along with his plans and the insistence she has on keeping her baby to herself. She is the closest creation he has to perfect, but in the end it isn’t enough. Her fears are realised and much like the house, she succumbs to the loss.

Midsommar by comparison is a much more straightforward film. The second feature by Ari Aster (full review can be read here), has a simple linear beginning, middle, end but that is where the simplicity ends. Following Dani (Florence Pugh) as she ventures to Sweden with her estranged boyfriend, Christian (Jack Reynor) and his friends to partake in a Commune’s ceremony, Midsommar also provides an unflinching portrayal of anxiety through its protagonist. Damaged by the tragic loss of her family, Dani’s life is forced to a standstill as her boyfriend becomes emotionally distant and she becomes more isolated. After he reluctantly offers her a space on their trip to Sweden, Dani accepts in the hope of finding adventure and distraction from her life. Unlike mother!, Dani’s anxiety was already ingrained as her sister’s bipolar grew more severe as time went on. Her opening scene sees her debate whether to actively respond to her sister’s troubling emails which in turn then results in the tragic murder/suicide of her sister and parents. If mother! showed an implosion of anxiety, Midsommar is an explosion. Dani’s anxiety gradually blooms during her time in the commune as she embraces the traditions unlike Christian and the others. In a similar way to mother!, the camera shakes with the anxiety as Dani experiences her panic attacks. When she is in the Commune, her anxiety is sympathised with in a way that seems alien to her. She becomes comfortable and relaxed in a way that we do not see beforehand. Much like the mural that is presented at the start, Dani’s journey is like the seasons as we start in the harsh winter in America to the open Spring in Sweden. Using pathetic fallacy may seem on the nose and perhaps it is, but in this film it enhances the experience and adds texture. The environment becomes reflective of Dani’s experience. The drug trips are a great example. When she takes drugs at the Commune entrance with Christian, she experiences a bad trip paralleling her confusion and alienation from the others. Compare this to the dance competition later on where she becomes open among the other women and begins speaking Swedish shows a completely different person.

It’s no surprise that we are seeing an increase in films that explore mental health so explicitly. With more people being open about their experiences, it has become an important talking point and naturally films become reflective and reactive to the social climate. Films like mother! and Midsommar provide a different perspective by adding those horror elements and unflinching narrative. The results are, ironically, a realistic portrayal of the inner struggle of anxiety by turning the characters inside out, their emotions become the visual canvas for the films. By no means am I suggesting that mental health has never been explored in films but it’s interesting to see it being explored in such a unique way that doesn’t see the protagonist immediately thrown into a psychiatric unit. The characters of mother and Dani are deeply complex. They have their own needs and desires and struggle with remaining an outsider to their peers. mother! shows a failed attempt whereas Midsommar goes down a route that is more successful but not in a way that would be deemed acceptable by those who did isolate her in America.

Both directors also wrote the scripts and their visions show a consistency with their own portfolios. Aronofosky is more experience and tends to write from the perspective of the outsider striving for success whereas Aster’s debut Hereditary follows a female protagonist who struggles to feel motivated when she emotionally finds herself spiralling downwards in a similar way to Dani. Both scripts are claustrophobic with Aronofsky opting to create a claustrophobic setting with an isolated cast. Even their names are unknown as they become known by their societal expectation whereas the characters in Midsommar are assigned their societal roles by the Commune at the end of the ceremony.

In conclusion, it’s clear that these are films that have a lot to say about society as a whole and what really makes an individual an outsider. Can an outsider ever truly fit in? Even then, is fitting in even the best solution? As shown in mother!, fitting in equates to chaos. The Commune in Midsommar hides its unspeakable actions behind the guise of ceremony and Dani becomes accomplice to this by accepting the events that occur. I am interested to see whether both directors further this narrative in future films and to see how mental health is portrayed in films in the future in general in a social climate that is becoming more and more uncertain each day.

Categories
Uncategorised

High Life (2018)

As part of an initiative to bring lesser-known films to Wrexham, 73 Cinema aim to show a variety of films that would otherwise have required a trip to bigger cities to view. Based in Ty Pawb, the second chosen feature was High Life (2018), Claire Denis’ first English-language project starring Robert Pattinson in the lead role as a death row inmate who is sent to space with other inmates in order to conduct experiments for those on Earth. Their major mission is to venture to the far ends of the Solar system and the minor mission is to attempt reproduction in space. Denis is a filmmaker who refuses to follow the rules and the brilliant use of non-linear structure reflects this. The film opens with remaining survivor, Monte (Pattinson) repairing the ship as his baby daughter, Willow, cries hysterically, causing him to lose a piece of equipment. There are moments of deep isolation in Monte’s eyes that are soon swept away when Willow starts to laugh and play. Willow becomes his driving force to survive.

Denis’ direction is outstanding and the film is beautifully still. The use of one major primary location is genius because it allows us to feel the claustrophobia. What is brilliant is how small the ship looks from the outside but it seems so big inside with each segment of the ship looking as though it is in an entirely different space. It’s difficult to believe that the same ship contains the garden that grows their food also contains the aptly-named “Fuck Box”, a room where the passengers go to obsessively masturbate. Monte is the only passenger who avoids the room, choosing to lead a celibate life and making him appear alien to the others. Pattinson knocks it out of the park with his performance. Monte is quiet and subdued, allowing the action of the film to be carried out by the more extroverted characters but he is also the most resilient of the bunch. Despite his crime, he has a strong moral compass and doesn’t lend himself to the violence easily. Pattinson carries this film and his performance as Monte appears natural. It’s a role that he was born to play.

The supporting cast are also strong with stellar performances from Juliette Binoche as the sinister Dibs, the ship doctor who is determined to complete the reproduction mission for her moment of glory and Mia Goth as troubled passenger, Boyse who is reluctant to participate in the experiment. Dibs is a character who can never be trusted and her presence onscreen immediately brings unease. She is unapologetic for her actions and what she does to Monte and Boyse is hugely upsetting and she shows no remorse. She is aware of her crimes and the monster she is but chooses not to linger on it with the exception of an emotional scene between her and Boyse in which she confronts her crime. It’s a moment in which Dibs becomes human and seems equal to the others. On the other hand, Goth is an actress who has shown much promise and fearlessness in her film choices since her debut in Lars von Trier’s sex-fuelled Nymphomaniac (2013). Her performance as Boyse shows a clear growth from her earlier work and I predict that she will have a long career. The scene in which she escapes in a ship to enter a blackhole is deeply disturbing and makes for one of the craziest death scenes I have ever seen in film.

High-Life-5

As ever, the screenplay is what I pay attention to the most and the film has so many qualities that I admire. Written by Denis and Jean-Pol Fargeau, the film could be described as a sci-fi horror set in space and yet is one of the most human features I have seen. It’s a claustrophobic study of human nature and the strength to survive in unknown conditions. As discussed, it is hugely intense and the script relies heavily on the actions rather than the dialogue. A lot of the time, the physicality and expressions of the character take us through a scene rather than what they are actually saying. Like the mission, the script also takes us into the unknown with twists and turns at every scene and motives change or emerge. There are only a couple of scenes based in Earth to give us a contextual glimpse into the background of the mission and the ship is used a primary location.

It is important to note that High Life is not a film for everybody. It doesn’t hold back in its grittiness with excessive violence, explicit rape scenes and suicide but it’s also a film that creates an intricate study into the human mind when thrust into impossible situations, demonstrating just how far people will go to ensure their legacy. Even in the vacuum of the universe, there is an obsession throughout the film with the idea of legacy and being heroes but in the end, it doesn’t matter. It is Monte’s refusal to engage with such ideals that has meant he is the last survivor. The final scenes between him and teenage Willow (Jessie Ross) bring the film to its hopeful conclusion as they venture into a black hole.

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

Categories
Uncategorised

Top 5 Joaquin Phoenix Performances

Undoubtedly the man of the moment in the film that has the festival circuit buzzing, Joaquin Phoenix is the frontrunner for awards for his titular performance in Todd Phillips’ origin story Joker. During a film climate that seems dominated by superhero films, Joker seems like it is doing something entirely different by twisting the tone and idea of the superhero movie. It feels that after years of playing the underdog in Indie features and his reluctance to entertain the spotlight, the mainstream media has finally caught up. It feels only right that I compile a list of my top 5 performances although it’s very tricky to do so.

Here’s my top 5 in chronological order:

Gladiator (2000)

I never thought Gladiator would be in a top anything list. Truth be told, I find the film overwhelming overall but the one element of it I absolutely love is Joaquin Phoenix’s brilliant performance as the evil Commodus, the power hungry son of Marcus Aurelius who gives power to Maximus (Russell Crowe) until a new empire is formed. His lust for power knows no bounds as he murders his own father and has Maximus arrested. It’s Phoenix’s performance that brings the real depth to this film. He could have easily played this role as a cartoonish villain but instead brings a snakelike presence to the character. His strength comes from the power that others give him rather than strength that he has by himself which comes to fruition in the final fight scene with Maximus.

The Master (2012)

Undoubtedly my favourite Joaquin Phoenix performance, The Master follows ex-marine Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) as he becomes involved with a cult called The Cause, led by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his wife, Peggy (Amy Adams). I won’t dwell too much on this film, mainly because I have written an extensive review for this film (which you can read here). Phoenix brings his A game to his performance and it truly is a career best. The scene where he initially undergoes “Processing” with Lancaster in which his darkest secrets and even darker past are revealed. It’s a brilliantly shot scene that brings together to titans of acting and should have won both Phoenix and Hoffman Academy Awards.

Her (2013)

Spike Jonze’s romantic Her shows a tender side to Phoenix in the role of Theodore Twombly, a depressed soon-to-be divorcé whose job is writing intimate letters for people who are too afraid to do so. He is so emotionally intense and yet detached at the same time as he begins a sexual relationship with his OS (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). Featuring a stellar cast that is rounded off by Amy Adams and Rooney Mara, this was one of the best films of 2013 and brought Spike Jonze a much-deserved Oscar for his screenplay. It’s a saddening portrayal of love and heartbreak in the 21st century. This is a film that easily could have fallen into ridiculous due to its eccentric plot but the sincerity that Phoenix brings to the role allows the audience to become truly invested in the plot.

Inherent Vice (2014)

Phoenix’s second collaboration with Paul Thomas Anderson brings renowned author Thomas Pynchon to the big screen in what is the only adaptation to date. Based on the drug-infused novel, Inherent Vice, we follow Doc Sportello, an alcoholic, drug-loving cop in 1969 as he tries to bring down a drug lord. It’s a hallucinogenic mesh of colour, music and Joanna Newsom who stars as a narrator only Doc can see. The film itself is hugely underrated, possibly due to the fact that it is too bizarre for a lot of people. Being a big fan of Pynchon, I was so excited to see how it would work adapting one of his books into film and it works perfectly. Phoenix is perfect casting and carries off Doc’s happy-go-lucky attitude with ease. He heads up a star-studded cast fantastically and commands the screen whenever he is on it. He brings the perfect amount of slapstick while also keeping the character’s dignity intact. It’s truly a brilliant film that I think is wrongly overlooked.

You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Lynne Ramsay’s gritty New York City based nightmare follows Phoenix as hitman, Joe, who lives and breathes violence and killing all while living with his elderly mother in his childhood home. He specialises in rescuing trafficked girls. He’s a character who’s backstory is stained with violence and abuse and there isn’t much else that he is capable of doing. He is quiet and alone but happy in his loneliness. When tasked with retrieving a Senator’s daughter from traffickers, Joe embarks on his hardest mission yet. The film is bloody and holds no punches. It’s brutal from beginning to end with devastating results. The direction and writing is super tight and brought both Phoenix and Ramsay prizes at Cannes Film Festival in a rare double win.

With the release of Joker, it seems that Phoenix is going to break into the mainstream and he’s the frontrunner come award season. It seems that these awards are long overdue. If it were up to me, he’d have a couple of oscars in his cabinet already but sadly that hasn’t been the case. I’d hope that those who are introduced to phoenix’s talents as the Joker watch him in other films and see his talents beyond that superhero universe.

I’ll be posting a review for Joker as soon as its released and I’m looking forward to seeing whether it would break into my top 5.

What do you think of my list? Do you agree or disagree? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Inferno (1980)

Dario Argento’s second feature in his Three Mother’s trilogy transport us from the Freiburg set Suspiria (1977) to New York where a young writer, Rose (Irene Miracle), is suspicious of a curse within her building. After reading an antique book titled The Three Mothers, she finds that the apartment block she lives at was once occupied by one of the Mothers. The Three Mothers rule the world with sorrow (Mater Suspiriorum who lives in Freiburg), tears (Mater Lachrymarum who lives in Rome) and darkness (Mater Tenebrarum who resides in New York). With Mater Suspiriorum meeting her demise in Suspiria, we now see Mater Tenebrarum face off those who rebel against her rule in New York. Tenebrarum is the cruelest of the sisters and the deaths in this film definitely reflect that.

Directed and written by Argento, Inferno carries on the themes explored in Suspiria but on a seemingly bigger scale. The stronger scenes are those based in the Mother’s domains as their presence can be felt at every corner. Argento’s love for the dramatic is also carried on in this film with lingering suspense and exaggerated deaths. Upon a traumatic discovery in the cellar of her apartment block, Rose writes to her brother, Mark (Leigh McCloskey), who is studying music in Rome and begs him to come and help her solve the mystery. From the moment Rose posts the letter, deaths begin to happen to whomever the siblings come across with Mark dealing with Mater Lachryrum during his time in Rome. Like Susie Banyon (Jessica Harper) in Suspiria, Rose is a strong and independent female character which is refreshing to see in classic horror films. Romani Albani is brought on as cinematographer and does a brilliant job of bringing Argento’s vision to life by bringing contrasts throughout the film from the surreal apartment that Rose’s sickly neighbour, Elise (Daria Nicolodi) lives in to the gritty sewers of Central Park. It feels like visual growth from Suspiria.

The film is filled with suspense from start to finish with a breathtaking scene in the cellar as Rose tries to search for the clues to lead her to the mysterious owner of the building. When her necklace falls into a deep pool, she is forced to dive and founds an underwater ballroom in a scene that sets the tone for the rest of the film. Argento never allows the audience to feel settled and the only scenes that don’t contain scares or violence tend to be those where background story is given in Argento’s signature fairytale way. Even the introduction begins with Rose reading an excerpt from The Three Mothers aloud in a way that makes it seem like an adult fairytale. Much like Suspiria, the experience of Inferno is heightened by the amazing soundtrack with a score composed by Keith Emerson who does a brilliant job. He combines new electronic sounds with dramatic operatic pieces to add to the unbalanced ambience that the film creates. It’s a striking score that I think is overlooked due to the iconic association that Argento has with The Goblins who composed the stellar music for Suspiria. What Emerson does is create an entirely different film with his unique sound.

My favourite scene comes near the beginning of the film when we are first introduced to Mark who is attending a classical music session. As he tries to read Rose’s letter, he is distracted by Mater Lachrymarum who is disguised as a beautiful student (Ania Pieroni). He can see that she is mouthing something at him and he feels pain. It is an intense scene as the wind picks up and he is visibly uncomfortable. When he snaps out the pain, she has mysteriously disappeared and he accidentally leaves the letter behind. It’s a brilliant scene that uses the classical music as the main force of emotion as the gradual crescendo coincides with his building pain.

Although the film overall isn’t as tight as Suspiria, I think it is highly underrated. I think that Suspiria is a stronger film because it focuses on the first witch but Inferno brings in the remaining witches with the first act showing killings in Rome before travelling to New York. I think the short running time of 90 minutes means that we don’t spend much time in either place. On release, this film was critically panned but over the years has developed much love in retrospect. In some ways I find this film more interesting than Suspiria because it brings in the legend of The Three Mothers. Much like Suspiria, the aesthetic of the film is beautiful as well with Argento’s signature use of bright contrasting colours to set the mood of the scene and plenty of gore and blood throughout. There is clearly a lot of passion that was put in this film and it’s a shame that the film did badly on initial release. It’s a horror film that I think will only get better with time.

What do you think of Inferno? Did you like it or loathe it? Let me know in the comments below!

You can my review on Suspiria here!

Categories
Uncategorised

It: Chapter Two (2019)

Set twenty-seven years after the events of the first instalment, It: Chapter Two brings the Loser’s Club back together as they reunite in Derry to defeat It once and for all. Bringing in an ensemble cast led by Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy to play the Losers as adults, It: Chapter Two is just as unexpected as the forms It can take. It’s important to remember that even in the book, the adult segments and teenage segments create an entirely different viewpoint and therefore, this creates an entirely different film. While the first segment brings us that introduction to It (in particular, Pennywise the Dancing Clown), the adults are already familiar to his tricks and aims. By this point, we’re familiar with the individual fears and the gang know how to defeat them; however It isn’t willing to give up that easily as he has been wreaking havoc on Derry. This film is told from the perspective of the insider as outsider as they witness tragedies happen but are unable to do anything about it and question whether they should do anything about it. After all, what has Derry done for them? It’s a film that shows that right and wrong isn’t always black and white.

With the exception of Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), who stayed in Derry, the gang moved away to various locations with their memories of the tragic events blurred the further they live. This may seem like an escape but the members of the club are leading unfulfilled lives. Bill (James McAvoy) is a seemingly successful writer who can’t seem to write a good ending, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) has found herself in another abusive relationship, Richie (Bill Hader) is an alcoholic stand-up comedian, Ben (Jay Ryan) is a dissatisfied architect and Eddie (James Ransone) has married a woman who is just like his mother (a funny touch being that they cast the same actress for extra measure). The only member of the gang who seems to be content is Stanley (Andy Bean) who is happily married and is looking forward to going on holiday. The trauma of the past events slowly piece together for the group as the film goes on but for Stanley, it immediately comes crashing down as soon as he sees the Derry number pop up on his phone. It’s brilliantly cast with Chastain and Hader particularly being my highlights from the Losers. The rapport between them feels as natural as it was in the first instalment.

images

The forms that It takes in the first instalment are the fears of the gang members in particular. In this film, the forms become more bizarre and veer on the side of grotesque with baby heads on the bodies of cockroaches as one gruesome example. The scenes when these creatures dominate can tend to go on for too long but the effects are brilliant and it is terrifying to watch. With double the budget, the special effects team have gone to town with making It as disgusting as possible with all sorts of bodily fluids floating around the place.

And now it’s time to talk about It itself. Bill Skarsgård has somehow exceeded the expectations from the first one and manages to bring another level of depth as he uses his emotions to trick the kids of today. One little girl is touched by his story of being a lonely clown with no friends in a scene that sees Pennywise act weirdly human which is unsettling to watch. We see Pennywise become completely unhinged as he is gradually backed into a corner as the gang work together to figure out how to kill It once and for all. He’s cheeky and mischievous as ever but more determined to make the deaths as gory as possible.

Both Andy Mushietti and Gary Dauberman are reliable in the roles of director and screenwriter, respectively and clearly have love and passion for the novel as they are faithful as can be. Even the changes that have been made feel necessary and natural to the progression of the plot and are mainly because of the time difference between the book and films. The brilliance of it ensures that today’s audiences are terrified just as the 80s audience would have been terrified from the book. If the films had followed the timelines in the book then it wouldn’t have the same impact due to how much the world has changed since then. One change that I am uncertain about was that rather than have Ben remain in Derry, they stayed with Mike. Mike is the one in the book who does all the research rather than Ben so naturally that would mean that in the film Ben stays in Derry so that aspect seemed disjointed in the film as we don’t really see Mike’s progression and research into madness from that early age which is done really well in the book. This doesn’t take away from the film but it did make me wonder why they decided to do it this way instead.

pennywise

The younger cast also make welcome appearances in flashbacks from the firsts film as well as additional scenes that were mainly filmed alongside the first film. Seeing the shots of the gang as teenagers against their adult counterparts shows how perfectly cast the film is, particularly Eddie and Beverly.

It’s quite difficult to compare the two films as they have completely different tones and themes. It would be too simple to merely state that it is a “grown-up version” of the first part as the characters have actually struggled to grow-up and remain largely as adult versions of their teenage selves which begs the question of: have they really escaped It? Did It stunt their emotional and mental growth into adulthood? It’s certainly more mature than its predecessor in its themes and especially explicit in its portrayal of abuse with the homophobic attack at the beginning one of the most shocking scenes I have ever seen in a film. It was horrific to read it in the book but on the screen, they didn’t hold back with the brutality and it showed that the greatest monster is actually mankind.

My favourite aspect of the film is a cameo by the brilliant mind behind the book. Yes. Stephen King makes a brilliant cameo as an antique shop owner who extorts Bill when he wants to buy his bike. It’s a great scene to watch and makes the film feel homely. It’s also a nice homage to the works of Stephen King. Let’s not forget that his work has been adapted the most and not always successfully so it’s great to see that this has his seal of approval.

What did you think of the film? Did you enjoy it? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Ready or Not (2019)

These past couple of years have seen a resurgence in horror films and it seems that a lot of writers and directors are using the genre to push forward ideas and responses to the current political climate. Ready or Not is definitely among this class of horror film, incorporating messages on classism in an increasingly divided landscape where the rich appear to be getting richer against limited social mobility for the poorer. Led by rising star, Samara Weaving plays Grace, a woman who was raised in foster homes who finds herself marrying her dream guy who just so happens to be a part of a huge family dynasty that owns a large gaming company. When face with the odd tradition that she has to play a game before being a part of the family, it becomes a game of cat and mouse as the family attempt to kill Grace as part of a ritual.

The film definitely lives up to its 18 rating with f-bombs everywhere and gore galore that makes Midsommar feel like a Disney film. If Netflix’s The Babysitter was a mere introduction to Samara Weaving then Ready or Not has cemented her status as the newest Scream Queen. Grace is a brilliant character who is fully aware of her position as an outsider from the beginning. At first she attempts to resist playing the game but seeing the seriousness in their attempt to kill her, she is forced to become efficient and do things she never thought she would. With a brillient supporting cast including Mark O’Brien as Alex, Grace’s new husband, Adam Brody as Alex’s conflicted brother, Daniel and Andie MacDowell as Alex’s mum. It’s a film that shows the complexity of human nature as each of the characters are thrown into this unexpected situation.

The screenplay is brilliant and makes use the singular space that the film inhabits. Written by Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, this film could have easily fallen flat with so many creatives at the helm, particularly given the limited setting and characters but they fought the odds and came up with a film that is smart and tied together. The scene in which Grace is told the backstory of the family before selecting her game is hugely intense as the audience knows that they cannot trust anyone. The film is full of symbolism and pay offs, the most obvious being Grace’s wedding dress. The difference between how it looks at the start and the end really hits home the events of the film. Another aspect of the film that was unexpected is how funny it was throughout. Even in the most gruesome scenes, the writing is witty and on point as the clueless relatives try to deal with the prospect of actually killing someone. One hilarious relation, Fitch (Kristian Bruun), spends some of his time learning how to use a crossbow on YouTube.

You’ll have to withstand a lot of gore but it’s a fun film to watch and is definitely worth watching on the big screen if you get the chance. I think it’ll go down as a modern favourite for horror fans and I look forward to seeing what Samara Weaving does next.

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

Categories
Uncategorised

Midsommar (2019)

As Summer is coming to an end, I thought it would be apt to write a post on my favourite film of the season. Unsurprisingly enough, it comes in the form of a summertime nightmare with Ari Aster’s second feature Midsommar. Following on from his brilliant debut, Hereditary (2018), Aster has managed to surpass expectations and once again brings us a new and refreshing take on traditional horror. The film follows college student, Dani (Florence Pugh) who joins her boyfriend, Christian (Jack Reynor) and his friends: Mark (Will Poulter), Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) on a trip to Sweden to observe a rare festival among Pelle’s familial commune. Things quickly turn sour as members of the group begin to disappear without a trace. It’s easy enough to expect a film in the same vein as The Wicker Man when introduced to the pagan style life the commune leads in the Swedish woods.

Florence Pugh’s leading turn only helps to further push her presence as an actress to watch. Dani is one of the most complex female characters to arise from modern cinema. We see her shift from the Westernised world that she lives in where there is no hope for her to the cult where she begins to feel belonging. It’s a haunting portrayal of depression and anxiety and is shown in an explicit way that hasn’t been explored before. The events in the film happen due to other’s people actions but they are always directly in relation to Dani and her welfare. Pugh’s acting chops are really highlighted in the dance scene where she becomes so absorbed in the competition that she finds herself speaking Swedish fluently with her competitors. The scene is transformative for Dani as she allows herself to be open to the ceremony and the community.

Photo_03

The supporting cast also knock it out the park with their performances. Will Poulter in particular gives a career best as the ignorant Mark, who literally and figuratively pisses all over the commune’s celebrations. Whereas Dani’s demons are hidden below the surface, the male characters’ flaws are on show for all to see. Whereas Dani is ridiculed for her struggles in US, the tables are turned for the men in the commune as women dominate the landscape. The film’s goriest scenes are mainly at the cost of the ignorant visitors and yet it doesn’t feel like a slasher film. The audience, like the characters, are outsiders but they are invading the ceremony and evoke little sympathy from the audience because of their ignorance and greed. Jack Reynor also excels as Dani’s emotionally distant boyfriend, Chris. He has allowed himself to become so detached to Dani that he acts emotionless and unsympathetic when tragedy strikes at the beginning of the film. He is unwilling to see how wrong he treats her as she struggles to fight for his love and repair things. During the film, we see Christian’s confidence shaken as he becomes targeted by the cult.

As expected, Aster’s script and direction showcase his talent as an original voice in film and his fearless approach to filmmaking. He isn’t afraid to explore taboo subjects or make the audience uncomfortable. One such scene is during an ättestupa ceremony where two elderly people jump from a high cliff. Aster doesn’t allow the camera to turn away as we see the bodies hit the ground. The reactions that Dani and co feel become all the more real because Aster forces the audience to experience it as well. It’s a film that demands the attention in details from its audience. Every aspect of the costumes and set have been well thought out and serve a purpose that pay off later in the film. The use of striking visual sets make it a memorable film and the immaculate beauty of the cult’s village make the strict lifestyle all the more terrifying. I think this film shows a growth in directorial vision from Aster’s standpoint as he really allows the audience to get into Dani’s psyche. The true brilliance of this film is Aster’s ability to contrast Dani’s claustrophobic feelings to the open space that the commune live in so effectively.

midsommar-cult-happyfaces-700x308

Another aspect I loved about the film was the use of costumes. Not only the ethereal and fresh qualities the commune colours have which seem refreshing when we first see the village. The standout costume, however, comes in a brilliant floral creation worn by Dani in the films final scenes. In any other film, it would seem ridiculous but it makes sense in this film. It both stands out and blends in at the same time and plays a big role in the terrifying climatic scene.

If it were up to me, this film would be a safe contender for various mainstream awards but I am aware that it is too violent and “out there” for some. It is not a film for the faint of heart or easily offended. Between the subtle cannibalism, male frontal nudity and graphic sex scenes, this isn’t a comfortable film to watch but that is what makes it such a brilliant piece of cinema.

What did you think of the film? Did you like it as much? What was your film of the summer? Let me know in the comments below!