Tag: screenwriting

Categories
Uncategorised

Disney Animated Classics: Final Ranking

So after months of reviewing and ranking the Disney Animated Classic library, I have finally got my finished list. I thought it would be a bit easier than what it was and found my opinion and outlook changing on a fair few of the films.

If you haven’t read this series then here’s your chance!

Films 1-5

Films 6-10

Films 11-15

Films 16-20

Films 21-25

Films 26-30

Films 31-35

Films 36-40

Films 41-45

Films 46-50

Films 51-57

Here we go with the final ranking from bottom to top:

57) Winnie the Pooh (2011)

56) Chicken Little (2005)

55) Dinosaur (2000)

54) Home on the Range (2004)

53) Meet the Robinsons (2007)

52) Make Mine Music (1946)

51) The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

50) Fantasia 2000 (2000)

49) Melody Time (1948)

48) Saludos Amigos (1948)

47) The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

46) Fun and Fancy Free (1946)

45) The Fox and the Hound (1981)

44) Lady and the Tramp (1955)

43) Oliver & Company (1988)

42) Robin Hood (1973)

41) The Rescuers (1977)

40) Big Hero 6 (2014)

39) Bolt (2008)

38) Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

37) Cinderella (1950)

36) The Sword in the Stone (1963)

35) The Jungle Book (1967)

34) Brother Bear (2003)

33) Treasure Planet (2002)

32) Zootopia (2016)

31) Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

30) The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

29) Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

28) The Black Cauldron (1985)

27) Hercules (1997)

26) Dumbo (1941)

25) Frozen (2013)

24) Tarzan (1999)

23) Pocahontas (1995)

22) Pinocchio (1940)

21) The Three Caballeros (1945)

20) Peter Pan (1953)

19) Moana (2016)

18) The Princess and the Frog (2009)

17) Lilo & Stitch (2002)

16) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

15) The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

14) One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

13) The Aristocats (1971)

12) Aladdin (1992)

11) Alice in Wonderland (1951)

10) Tangled (2010)

9) The Little Mermaid (1989)

8) Mulan (1998)

7) The Lion King (1994)

6) The Many Adventures of Winnie of Pooh (1977)

5) Bambi (1942)

4) Sleeping Beauty (1959)

3) Beauty and the Beast (1991)

2) Fantasia (1940)

1) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

So that’s the full ranking! What do you think? Let me know what Disney films are your favourites in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Disney Animated Classics: Numbers 51-57 Ranking

We finally made it! After months of reviews and rankings, this is the final post before we are all up to date before Frozen II hits cinemas. This series of posts have taken us through not only the history of Disney but also a history of animation as we transition from hand-drawn to computer animation. Going from more traditional fairytale retellings to complex stories about identity and love, Disney continues to better itself as a studio although there is still a long way to go. Much like the animation studio in Burbank, it is held up by its traditions like the statues of the Dwarfs that hold up the building itself. This bunch of films sees Disney poke fun of its past in a bid to expose the mistakes that have been made in its portrayal of serious issues such as gender stereotypes and racism. In doing so, it tends to fall flat at times as the gestures don’t seem sincere and apologetic but it is made with good intentions.

We also see Disney’s most successful film as well as the first Best Animated Feature Oscar winners that aren’t Pixar. Disney seems to have found its footing in a landscape dominated by computer animation by using nostalgic elements such as Disney princesses but making them modern. With Disney being the most powerful studio in the world, they are able to recruit star-studded casts and the best crew such as Lin-Manuel Miranda’s stellar soundtrack for Moana and Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell as the two sisters in Frozen.

Just in case you need a refresher, here are the previous installments:

Films 1-5

Films 6-10

Films 11-15

Films 16-20

Films 21-25

Films 26-30

Films 31-35

Films 36-40

Films 41-45

Films 46-50

This list includes the last hand-drawn feature before Disney announced its dedication to computer animation and also includes some of the most progressive films in Disney’s catalogue. These films clearly have an aim to push strong female characters in them and although it isn’t perfect, it’s a step in that direction. There are areas as I have said previously where Disney need to step up such as including LGBT+ characters and a wider array of cultural backgrounds that don’t fall into stereotypical tropes. The films from Disney aren’t perfect but they are trying to right the wrongs of the past while also reflecting modern politics in a way where they please everyone. I don’t necessarily agree with their philosophy but they are a brand and revenue is one of the most important (if not THE most important) factor in the Disney process. Hopefully, they learned from the straight-to-DVD sequel, prequel fiasco of the early noughties and go back to creating films with heart where the audience is the primary focus rather than their pockets.

Without further ado, here are the reviews for films 51-57:

51) Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Marking Disney’s last hand-drawn feature, Winnie the Pooh seems to mark the end of an era as Disney begins to embark on computer-animated films only. I am really sad to say that this film falls flat for me. I just didn’t find it enjoyable in the slightest. The animation is off, the plot is boring and the characters aren’t as lovable. I mean, this is Winnie the Pooh we’re talking about. The characters are loved all around the world but this adaptation mauls the text and tarnishes the franchise. Luckily, we still have The Many Adventures of WInnie the Pooh to enjoy and we can forget about this mess of a film. The animation of the animals isn’t too bad but the design of Christopher Robin and the background looks out of place.

WINNIE-jumbo.jpg

52) Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Showing that Disney is still capable of producing original material, Wreck-It Ralph follows the titular character (voiced by John C. Reilly) who is the villain of an arcade game wanting to be the good guy for once like “Fix-It Felix”, the insufferable character who defeats Ralph numerous times a day. Ralph is despised by the fellow tenants of the apartment block that he tries to destroy. Sick of the same routine, Ralph escapes to Sugar Rush, another game where players race through lands of candy. There he encounters the tiny Vanellope von Schweet (voiced by Sarah Silverman), a funny and sassy aspiring racer who is also an outcast due to her glitch. Together, they try to become heroes when the arcade’s future is thrown into uncertainty. It’s a film full of nostalgia with its inclusion of iconic game characters such as Pacman and Sonic the Hedgehog but it isn’t held down by this or overwhelmed.

53) Frozen (2013)

The first non-Pixar Disney film to take home the Best Animated Feature Oscar is also the most successful Disney film of all time. Frozen takes its inspiration from “The Snow Queen” by Hans Christian Anderson and follows Princess Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) who embarks on a quest to find her sister Queen Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) when the latter runs away and covers the entire Kingdom of Arendelle in an eternal winter. The film itself is a huge feat for Disney as it features one of the most iconic songs to come out of the Disney catalogue (Oscar winning song, “Let It Go”) as well as some of the most memorable characters in recent years, notably Olaf the sun-loving snowman (voiced by Josh Gad). Frozen is instantly recognisable around the globe and has become a phenomenon and a brand in itself which is hugely impressive for an animated film. Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez’s songwriting feels like the modern equivalent of the iconic songs from Alan Menken and Howard Ashman as they capture the essence of the film from the opening song. It’s not everyday that an animated feature passes the $1 billion mark at the box office but Frozen did it and with two female protagonists at the helm to boot. Who said women don’t make revenue at the box office?

54) Big Hero 6 (2014)

This is the one Disney film that I hadn’t seen before completing this ranking. I have been meaning to watch it but eventually I forgot and never got around to it. Following teenage Hero, a ridiculously intelligent robot enthusiast who has graduate high school early and doesn’t know what to do with his time, we see his budding friendship with Baymax, a robot made by his late brother. Big Hero 6 isn’t a bad film by any means but just as I had suspected, it just isn’t my cup of tea. I completely appreciate the height though as the animation is among Disney’s best in the modern age. Based on a Marvel comic that is based in a fictional city that combines San Francisco and Tokyo, the film appears to take aspects of Japanese culture such as using the language on shop signs and using Japanese characters names in an English-speaking white American setting. I think it is more of a tribute to Japanese anime than maliciously appropriating but it feels as though Big Hero 6 is more of a “trendy” film due the popularity of anime than a sincere offering. The animation style takes inspiration from anime but the style is more Disney’s version of anime. As I say, I don’t think the film is bad but I feel like it could have been more.

Big-Hero-6-to-size-3.jpg

55) Zootopia (2016)

I have marked this down as Zootopia on the ranking as that was the original title although in the UK, this was released as Zootropolis. Set in a universe populated by animals where predators rule the roost and prey are subject to less dangerous careers such as farming. The film follows Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin), a rabbit who succeeds in becoming a police officer but is subject to parking duty because she is a rabbit. After numerous predators go missing, Judy eagerly volunteers to find them to prove herself and teams up with con-artist Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman), a fox who Judy blackmails into assisting her. The film is a clever depiction of racism in American as well as an accurate portrayal of gender politicals and the corruption of authority. Despite the obscure metaphor, the message of equality is easy enough for children to grasp and this is what makes the film more than simple entertainment.

56) Moana (2016)

The latest inclusion of a Disney princess sees us travel to the Polynesian island of Motunui where Moana is destined to become the Chief of her village but she longs to venture out to sea. What follows is a road trip style film where she has to retrieve the Heart of Te Fiti to stop her island suffering from famine. Teaming up with shapeshifting demigod, Maui, Moana must sail across the seas encountering monsters and finding herself along the way. The plot for the film is simple and the structure is reflective of a road-trip movie but elevates this film and makes it special is the soundtrack. Written by Pulitzer Prize winning songwriter Lin-Manuel Miranda, the songs are beautiful and clever, incorporating the language and music style of Polynesian culture naturally. I don’t think the film would be as successful as it is without the soundtrack as the songs really show the character development as Moana grows from a fearful girl wanting to explore to an adventurer who wants to continue her ancestor’s tradition. The animation is stunning and it is by far my favourite inclusion on this list.

57) Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

The second Disney sequel to be included on the Animated Classics list, Ralph Breaks the Internet is the eagerly awaited follow-up to 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph. The arcade’s popularity is waning and Vanellope is growing bored with the same racetracks everyday. She wants more and longs to venture to the internet where free-riding games are all the rage. When a player accidentally breaks the steering wheel for the machine after fighting Vanellope for control, Ralph and Vanellope must find $27,000 for a new wheel to purchase before the machine is closed down. They venture into the internet to find the money. The film is even more bonkers than the first and really captures how random the internet really is. The studio even goes as far as to incorporate the dark web by making it sleezy and the creatures that reside there are truly disgusting and disturbing. Unlike The Rescuers Down Under, this is a sequel that feels fresh and familiar at the same time.

ralph-breaks-the-internet-princess-tiana-post3

So that’s it! That’s all the reviews for every Animated Classic so far. It’s been a lot of fun but really challenging having to decide where they all slot because every film is so different (except for The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under which is the same film set in different countries). Needless to say, I am very excited to see where Disney goes as we enter a new decade and I hope that they also go back to including hand-drawn animation as well. It’d be nice to see their animations explored in all styles.

Here is my final ranking:

1) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

2) Fantasia (1940)

3) Beauty and the Beast (1991)

4) Sleeping Beauty (1959)

5) Bambi (1942)

6) The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

7) The Lion King (1994)

8) Mulan (1998)

9) The Little Mermaid (1989)

10) Tangled (2010)

11) Alice in Wonderland (1951)

12) Aladdin (1992)

13) The Aristocats (1971)

14) One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

15) The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

16) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

17) Lilo & Stitch (2002)

18) The Princess and the Frog (2009)

19) Moana (2016)

20) Peter Pan (1953)

21) The Three Caballeros (1945)

22) Pinocchio (1940)

23) Pocahontas (1995)

24) Tarzan (1999)

25) Frozen (2013)

26) Dumbo (1941)

27) Hercules (1997)

28) The Black Cauldron (1985)

29) Atlantis: the Lost Empire (2001)

30) The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

31) Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

32) Zootopia (2016)

33) Treasure Planet (2002)

34) Brother Bear (2003)

35) The Jungle Book (1967)

36) The Sword in the Stone (1963)

37) Cinderella (1950)

38) Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

39) Bolt (2008)

40) Big Hero 6 (2014)

41) The Rescuers (1977)

42) Robin Hood (1973)

43) Oliver & Company (1988)

44) Lady and the Tramp (1955)

45) The Fox and the Hound (1981)

46) Fun and Fancy Free (1947)

47) The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

48) Saludos Amigos (1943)

49) Melody Time (1948)

50) Fantasia 2000 (2000)

51) The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

52) Make Mine Music (1946)

53) Meet the Robinsons (2007)

54) Home on the Range (2004)

55) Dinosaur (2000)

56) Chicken Little (2005)

57) Winnie the Pooh (2011)

I am aware that the final rankings may seem shocking and the new films such as Frozen may seem really low on the list, but consider that the ones at the tops are classics that have been with me through childhood, I think they have done really well. The films at the top have proven to be classics that have stood the test of time for decades and still resonate with audiences today whereas the newer films need that chance to breathe.

I am excited to see where Disney go in the future and I am hoping Frozen II continues to push Disney in the right direction as it has done so far with its feminist outlook.

What do you think of my final ranking? What would be your top choice? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

Another film that I have been meaning to see since its release, Sorry to Bother You is a brilliant study of capitalism in modern day America. Written and directed by Boots Riley in a fantastic debut, we follow Cassius “Cash” Green (Lakeith Stanfield) as he starts a career in RegalView, a telemarketing centre and his rise to the top after using his “white voice” to appeal to white middle-class America. His friends at RegalView, Squeeze (Steven Yeun) and Salvador (Jermaine Fowler) start a union to get basic benefits as the workers only receive commission. Cash quickly becomes a “Power Caller” and is taken to the top floor where he is tasked with selling slave labour on behalf of corrupt company, WorryFree, to large corporations around the world. In a society where money talks, we see Cash’s struggle intensify as he has to choose between security and his relationship with his girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson). The film flits between genres flawlessly, drifting from comedy to drama to science-fiction in a matter of seconds. It’s refusal to slot into a specific box and the ability to feel relevant shows Riley’s talent for screenwriting. There is so much going on in this film that adds layers and layers of subtext and it’s a testament to the racist and classist struggle that underlies modern society.

First thing to discuss is the direction and script. Despite the film being his directorial debut, Riley brings a film that looks as though he has done this for years. His vision is crystal clear right down to the colours of the doors. The film opens on Cash’s interview at RegalView as he attempts to blag his way to the entry job. He unsuccessful carries out a flamboyant lie which sees him take a huge trophy and employee of the month frame that he had made to make himself seem more impressive. From the get go, Riley establishes Cash as someone who is willing to do what it takes to achieve the American Dream. The capitalist aspect of this film is at the forefront but there are the racist undertones which are made more explicit as Cash finds himself among a rich, white society. Even at the point when he has achieved more than his colleagues on the bottom and top floors, he is still viewed as an outsider.

stby_tessa.0.jpg

This brings me onto the cast who all do a brilliant job, particularly Stanfield and Thompson. The chemistry they have is so natural and the audience feels the intensity when the relationship becomes strained. Cash’s conflict with identity and finding a purpose is one that resonates with a lot of people. He doesn’t fit in with any particular group of people and any stereotypes that society has of black people don’t fit at all. Detroit is an artist who is certain of her identity and has a clear view of the world. There is a literal divide for the characters as the morally sound people populate the bottom floor and live for pennies and the corrupt group working upstairs live extremely privileged lifestyles. We see in a matter of seconds Cash’s life shift as the material items are replaced more luxurious goods such as his car. The film’s dynamic editing is quickfire and snappy to portray the large scale changes that money can make. These material items and the apartment Cash buys detaches him further and further away from his friends. He soon begins to use his “white voice” without realising as his work persona starts to take over and change his personality. 

The point of view in the film is fairly radical in its ideas and the issues it raises are important. We see a Leftist group attempt to fight a large corporation who deal with trading weaponry and slave labour to other countries. Modern society looks at the history of slavery with disgust and yet those at the top are competing to have a slice of the pie when WorryFree’s plan for slave labour piques the interest of the powerful due to low cost and high productivity. Riley is quick to remind the audiences that the problems society had in the past haven’t truly gone away and that it merely embarks a different and more modern disguise. The idea of the call centre and sticking to the script literally brainwashes its employees and forces them to conform to an ideal that fits a white middle-class America. The Leftist group are made to look wild and are even mocked when they throw cans at the staff who try to enter the building with one particular can hitting Cash and giving him a huge cut on his head throughout the film. The wound becomes symbolic of his betrayal to the cause and the physical and metaphorical damage that has been caused by his willingness to partake in the selling of slave labour.

sorry_to_bother_you_ending_explained_armie_hammer

Overall, this is a very strong film with a clear point of view that is important and relevant. It’s a shame that this didn’t get a wider release as I think this is a film that explores difficult themes in a unique way that pushes boundaries in a similar way that Get Out did.

What did you think of Sorry to Bother You? I’m assuming it’s positive because the film is bloody incredible! 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

Disney Animated Classics: Numbers 46-50 Ranking

This post has been a long one coming as I have been slow reviewing and uploading this series of posts but we are almost there. This is the penultimate post before we are completely up to date just in time for the upcoming release of the much-hyped Frozen II. After featuring Disney during its slump, we see the last of it here and begin to move forward into the era of today known as the Revival. I can’t believe we’re almost at the end but some of the films in this list, I have watched countless times.

As ever you can read the previous instalments here:

Films 1-5

Films 6-10

Films 11-15

Films 16-20

Films 21-25

Films 26-30

Films 31-35

Films 36-40

Films 41-45

With the introduction of the new era, we begin to see Disney pushing itself into the 21st century and reflecting the politics and society of today. With that in mind we begin to see a reintroduction to new Disney princesses who are more diverse and independent, inclusion of characters of different races and backgrounds. Disney has a long way to go with this as we eagerly await the first openly LGBT+ character in an animated film from them whereas other animation studios such as Laika have been more inclusive and fearless. However, the films in this list show Disney starting to go in the right direction.

Here’s the reviews for films 46-50:

46) Chicken Little (2005)

This film was everywhere on its release and marked a start for Disney beginning to incorporate computer animation more in its repertoire. The result, however, was extremely disappointing. Chicken Little sees Zach Braff as the titular character who convinces his town that the sky is falling and becomes a laughing stock. What the townspeople don’t know is that it is actually true and the town is on the brink of an alien invasion. The story itself is sweet but what lets it down is the animation, poor character development and overly tortured dialogue. The film reeks of noughties trends and tries so hard to be relevant that it becomes cringy to watch. The character of Chicken Little isn’t particularly well-rounded as he spends most of the film falling over or not communicating properly with other characters, mainly his father. Unlike Pixar, the animation doesn’t feel as modern as it should be (Pixar released The Incredibles in 2004 for comparison) and it seems that the plot is disjointed and isn’t pulled off as they imagined. The film did well commercially but not critically and I think that the team did take this on board. There’s a reason that we don’t see or hear of Chicken Little at the Disney Parks and I don’t think it’d even be considered for a reboot at any point. This definitely seems like Disney’s lowest point.

47) Meet the Robinsons (2007)

This was an interesting film for me to watch as I had only just seen it the once previously. Following orphan Lewis whose inventions prevent him from being adopted, he invents a machine to help him remember his mother’s face. At a science fair to debut this project, he is encountered by Wilbur Robinson, a teenager from the future who tells Lewis that the future is in jeopardy if his machine is stolen. Inspired by Tomorrowland at Disney’s park and using Disney’s philosophy “keep moving forward”, the film has a beautiful story and message but sadly it is overwhelmed by one dimensional characters and a strained first act. On rewatching, I did like the film a lot more than the first time but to me it is on the lower tier of Disney films. This is only because there is an abundance of characters and none of them feel really well-rounded. The animation is also problematic at times although a big improvement on Chicken Little. Scenes such as the incident with his peanut butter and jelly gun looks out of place and doesn’t match the aesthetic of the film.

48) Bolt (2008)

It seems hard to believe that Bolt was released a year after Meet the Robinsons. The animation looks so much more advanced and it feels like Disney going back to its original formula while pushing the studio into the future with the critical success that they had hoped for Chicken Little. Bolt (voiced by John Travolta) is a Hollywood stunt dog with his own TV show with his owner, Penny (voiced by Miley Cyrus). When he is mistakenly shipped to New York, he must team up with Mittens the cat and Rhino the hamster to reunite with Penny in Hollywood. The plot is a simple road movie and Disney goes back to using a big star ensemble to draw in the audiences but it works. It’s a film that shows that Disney are capable of bringing quality and heart to their films and starts to mark their presence in the 21st century in a computer animated dominated landscape. The soundtrack is another highlight for this film with the closing song “I Thought I Lost You” sung by Travolta and Cyrus a nice ending and ridiculously catchy.

49) The Princess and the Frog (2009)

After a few unsuccessful attempts at computer animation, Disney returned to hand-drawn animation for this seemingly classic retelling of The Princess and the Frog. Set in 1920s New Orleans, waitress Tiana kisses Prince Naveen, a talking frog, and is ultimately turned into one herself. Together, Tiana and Naveen have to figure out how to undo the curse before they run out of time and become frogs forever. This film was a significant step in Disney history as it features Disney’s first black princess. Unlike the previous films of the 2000s, the film feels sincere and harks back to the classic fairytales and yet sits nicely in a 21st century landscape. The soundtrack is standout and Facilier is one of the scariest villains in Disney history. The animation also feels traditional with its bright New Orleans carnival colours mixed with the Bayou landscape. It’s a gorgeous film that is a true testament to Disney getting itself back on track. There’s great character development and a nice cast of characters who are also developed, particularly friendly firefly, Ray and the jazz loving alligator, Louis.

50) Tangled (2010)

My favourite film on this particular post, Tangled is a quirky retelling of Rapunzel, a princess with long hair who is locked away in a tower. In this film, Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore) is an anxiety-ridden young woman seeking adventure who, along with her sidekick, chameleon Pascal, heads on a quest to visit the “floating lights” with outlaw Flynn (voiced by Zacahary Levi). The animation is fantastic, the soundtrack is beautiful and the film as a whole knocks it out the park. It’s a shame that this was released the same year as Toy Story 3 which outshadowed every animated film that year. Fortunately, Tangled has succeeded in maintaining a legacy and a loyalty among fans with merchandise constantly updated and appearances by the characters in the parks. I think that “I See the Light” is one of the best songs and scenes in Disney history. Everything about it is perfection and brings what we love about Disney films to the surface. The animation of the lanterns and the accompanying scenes in the kingdom are amazingly detailed and filled with texture. It’s one of the most popular modern DIsney films for a reason and deserves more than one watch.

That’s the end of the penultimate post with one extended post to go for films 51-57. We’re deep into the Revival now and the next post features the first non-Pixar Disney films to win the Best Animated Feature Award at the Oscars showing that they are at the height of their game. The next post sees Disney venture into reboots, sequels and originals that vary in topics such as friendship, love and isolation.

I promise I will try to be quick with uploading the next post so I can be up to date and ready to see where Frozen II will slot into the list.

Here is my ranking:

1) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

2) Fantasia (1940)

3) Beauty and the Beast (1991)

4) Sleeping Beauty (1959)

5) Bambi (1942)

6) The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

7) The Lion King (1994)

8) Mulan (1998)

9) The Little Mermaid (1989)

10) Tangled (2010)

11) Alice in Wonderland (1951)

12) Aladdin (1992)

13) The Aristocats (1971)

14) One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

15) The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

16) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

17) Lilo & Stitch (2002)

18) The Princess and the Frog (2009)

19) Peter Pan (1953)

20) The Three Caballeros (1945)

21) Pinocchio (1940)

22) Pocahontas (1995)

23) Tarzan (1999)

24) Dumbo (1941)

25) Hercules (1997)

26) The Black Cauldron (1985)

27) Atlantis: the Lost Empire (2001)

28) The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

29) Treasure Planet (2002)

30) Brother Bear (2003)

31) The Jungle Book (1967)

32) The Sword in the Stone (1963)

33) Cinderella (1950)

34) Bolt (2008)

35) The Rescuers (1977)

36) Robin Hood (1973)

37) Oliver & Company (1988)

38) Lady and the Tramp (1955)

39) The Fox and the Hound (1981)

40) Fun and Fancy Free (1947)

41) The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

42) Saludos Amigos (1943)

43) Melody Time (1948)

44) Fantasia 2000 (2000)

45) The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

46) Make Mine Music (1946)

47) Meet the Robinsons (2007)

48) Home on the Range (2004)

49) Dinosaur (2000)

50) Chicken Little (2005)

What do you think of the list? 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!

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!