Article: All Hail the Cinema Bastard

It is said that audiences love a good villain and when looking through the annals of cinema it isn't hard to dig up a Darth Vader here or an Ursula there. The appeal lies in their charm. That swagger. Confidence. With good villains, it's hard not to sympathise, but never surprising if we empathise. I for one was not surprised by the Thanos is right truthers. He tells his tale convincingly. Great stories have antagonists as compelling as their heroes.

This piece isn't about that. 

I've decided to write about the toe rag of movies. The obnoxious, self-serving clowns who are not the villains of the story, yet they're certainly not the heroes. The Richard Hammond of the seventh art. The Cinema Bastard.

Usually a melding of a well-horned screenplay and a brilliant character actor, the cinema bastard is the stock character of legend. An underrated individual who can really make a film. The bureaucratic gatekeeper, the smug sleazebag. He will never be the true villain but is happy to cosy up to him as his hype man. If you are thinking of a right-hand man like Oddjob or the muscle-bound, metal-mouthed Jaws then you're mistaken. Those guys can handle themselves against Bond in their own right. They are worthy foes. Boris from GoldenEye, on the other hand, is a cinema bastard. Arrogant, smug, and just a traitorous pain in the ass as opposed to a more accomplished, formidable ass-kicker. The Cinema Bastard will not get his hands dirty and if there is a chance to screw over the protagonist without doing so. He is all in. He is the gambling turncoat. The morally bankrupt also-ran who will sell you out to get a leg-up. The pencil pushing office dweeb who has a sudden taste for needlessly enforcing rules against our hero. Especially if a girl is involved. He is a jerk, but he is never the main boss.

Do I have an example? Why of course. There are so many.

Director James Cameron is one of the first names that springs to mind when we consider the Cinema Bastard. He gave us two of the best. In The Terminator (1984) we are introduced to Dr. Silberman (Earl Boen). A criminal psychologist who is an infuriating mixture of somewhat decent intentions and justifiable ignorance. He is not seen what Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) has seen, so it’s understandable that he simply marks her tale of an indestructible mental man as pure delusion. However, it is not so much that he doesn’t believe Sarah, more than the smarmy, offhanded way he denounces her claims. This, of course, comes into the forefront in Terminator 2 Judgement Day (1991) when Silberman arrogantly parades an imprisoned Connor in front of some other colleagues. Channelling his inner Dr. Phil with haughty aplomb. His reaction when the T-1000 turns up is priceless.

 

Cameron gives us the quintessential Cinema Bastard in Aliens (1986). Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) is the smarmy corporate lap dog. The smirking stooge who hides the insidious wants of the Weyland-Yutani corporation under his cheap suit and tie or trashy plaid shirt, beige ghillie combo. There’s good reason to think of Burke has the villain of Aliens due to his morally bankrupt actions. “Let’s release those face-huggers!” “I’m going to let you all deal with the Aliens. Let me close this door!” Proper villainous. However it’s important to remember that the aliens are the main course, Burke is still really a side dish. A heinous one, but a side dish all the same. What is important about Burke is the reason why he’s pulled such acts. All the chummy interaction he holds with Ripley. All the weaselling around the Army men. Going down to LV-426 as a “representative”. Burke is Ian Holm’s Ash muscled up from the 1979 original, but at least Ash was programmed. Burke is more than happy to skirt past the line of moral decency because…money? A corner office?

Like Ellis in Die Hard (1988), Burke seems to operate on the deluded belief that he’s somewhat impervious to the chaos, for little reason other than dishonest bluster. One of the key aspects of the best cinema bastards stems from the fact that we know they’re a wrong un from the off. Villains can obtain a sense of empathy. Audience members never side with the morality vacuum that is The Cinema Bastard. Even if what they’re saying makes sense, they’re a prick about it. One of the nastiest things about Burke is the best part of Paul Reiser’s performance: The sheer blank-faced denial that he is ever in the wrong. He is a pure oily politician. Born and raised to convince and deceive. Nearly everything he says is an angle. The most disturbing thing about Burke is how easily we could image him in congress or parliament today, spewing fake news without blinking an eye. Burke would happily cause disruption and confusion in the streets of a seismic global event. If there’s a price.

 

 

Everyone has their own special Cinema Bastard. Walter Peck (William Atherton) from Ghostbusters is well loathed. My personal favourite? Resident warmonger Albert Nimzicki in a deliciously sleazy turn by James Reborn in everyone’s beloved hawkish blockbuster Independence Day. He can be summed up in two moments. Getting his way and getting President Bill Pullman to launch nukes at the volatile little grey planet destroyers who have invaded Earth being one of the major ones. As the POTUS rightly hesitates upon the action (“God have mercy on our souls”) Albert Nimzicki just leans over his shoulder and apples EVEN MORE PRESSURE on the Prez with his gentle nudge "Mr. President” he mutters as if he hasn't already doomed us all.

The nukes launch, they strike the spaceship, and Nimzicki is already polishing his brass neck way before the hit is even confirmed. That is a pure bastard. A man that's so sure of himself that he doesn't even wait to see if the ship is still there. Of course, it hasn’t made a dent. ID4 is a long-ass summer movie and the nukes occur at the midway point. But nothing is more satisfying than when this bastard gets his pink slip near the end of the films running time. For bastard watchers, that’s when the fat lady sings.

 

What is it about the cinema bastard? The human face of banal evil. The bouncer who IDs you on a night out when you are clearly old enough. The retail customer who pulls demands to see the manager over a mild inconvenience. When the bastard arrives in the movie, we already know the problem and they love to pretend that they are the solution. Think Harry Ellis in Die Hard. We all love a villain, but we love to hate the cinema bastard. The contrarian asshole who wonders what's in it for me. The red-tape loving nightmare who stirs the administrative pot for the hero.

That is just who they are. Mr. Status Quo. The devil's advocate for Thanos. The open-plan office arsehole whose answer needs to be heard, despite no one asking the question. There's nothing wrong with holding libertarian values if you feel that way. However, the cinematic bastard feels endeavored to tell you it's the only way to go and he’ll do it with a smug grin.

The zombie sub-genre is prime real estate for the cinema bastard to move in with his awful taste in furniture. A Twitter colleague reminded me of the superb turn played by Dylan Moran as David in Shaun of the Dead (2004). The so-called pacifist whose blatant affection for Shaun's girlfriend manifests itself into a particular method of passive aggression towards Shaun before of course, he becomes lunch.

Harry (Karl Hardman) from Night of the Living Dead (1968) may be doing the best for his family in his eyes, but the socio-political tension that inhabits this movie, with its black lead, helps turn the claustrophobic house into a battleground. Harry does what he can to rub our hero the wrong way. Romero often stated that he wasn't trying to be political and yet considering every zombie film he did after Night, as well as that film's brutal ending, it's hard not to think that Harry would probably listen to the lead character if he shared the same skin tone.

 

 

Leonard Nimoy, most known for being Star Trek’s stoic logical foil behind Captain Kirk as Spock, plays self-help bastard Dr. David Kibnar in the first remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). His new book’s out. He's the toast of the town. Always informing folk of his opinion but never listening to their words. He says things like giving people a psychological band-aid after giving them some pop psychology. If the film was made now? He would be a self-help scammer on Instagram. He would be Dr. Phil. He is the man telling everyone that nothing is wrong while the world's on fire. The smug cynic. We are never surprised when he succumbs to the alien spores. But he’s never the chief enemy. Merely an irritating distraction.  

 

 

Zara from Jurassic World (2015) is a weak example from a franchise that gave us 1 of the 90’s best bastards in its first cinematic entry. The insidious notions of Dennis Nerdy (Wayne Knight) seem so far away in a movie marred by retrograde views on gender. Unfortunately, Jurassic World also decides to give Zara a bastard style comeuppance. The unlucky babysitter is marked as the first female on-screen death of the Jurassic Park franchise, yet her demise is highly obnoxious considering her lack of bastard level. The appeal of the Cinema Bastard lies within a film dishing out a delicious brand of its own rich creamy Moral Justice. That director Colin Trevorrow wanted to switch the script and surprise the audience is understandable. We've kind of seen it all at this point. But the jarring aspect of Zara’s death without even a level of bastardry can give off disabling effect in terms of tone. The level of assholery is so close to what we know so a cinema bastard comeuppance is a small hooray. Not here. Her death feels frivolous and senseless. An outcome with little of the weight of a true cinema bastard. It's a reminder that we go to movies for the same way Mia Farrow’s character does in Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). We love to indulge in the black and white escapism that the movies so often give us. The cinema bastard is all about getting his way and getting hoisted by his own petard.

It’s the likes of Zara from Jurassic World that make us realise that we’re seeing less of this kind of this jerk of a character. This piece has referred to films of the ’60s and ’70s (The Mayor from Jaws anyone?), but it’s no surprise that the Cinema Bastards entered a rich vein of form in the ’80s and ’90s. Particularly in larger mainstream movies where you need an authoritative or administrative figure who may stand in the way of our brave protagonists, but only for so long. The cinema bastard was a great role for a solid character actor who may not have been the main draw of a movie but held a “that guy” presence that keen-eyed film fans would always appreciate. The list of actors is a long one: JT Walsh, Paul Gleason, Anthony Heald, John C. McGinley, Ronny Cox, Miguel Ferrer, James Tolkan, Colm Meany…need I go on?

 

As film tastes have changed hugely since the arrival of mega franchises and cinematic universes it does feel like there is less space to take up the cinema bastard mantle. When I tweeted about how much I missed the cinema bastard, I quickly had a thread filled with amazing jerks from so many films of my adolescent years. The Cinema Bastard has taken a step back in recent times, despite having the likes of Ben Mendelsohn (Rogue One) and Ann Dowd (Hereditary, Compliance) keeping the throne warm. The Cinema Bastard seemingly has a healthier living in the world of TV, possibly due to the time allowance a show has for it to grow. As major films place their focus squarely on spectacle, there’s little shock that we see the likes of Ann Dowd rising to the occasion in The Handmaids Tale in spite of her superlative displays in the aforementioned movie examples. For me it one of the reasons why Zara’s character and death feel so out of step in Jurassic World. The pieces all seem to be there, but they just don’t fit. It is a bit of a shame. Sometimes we need jerks.

Review: Storage 24

Year: 2012

Director: Johannes Roberts
Screenplay: Noel Clarke, Davie Fairbanks, Marc Small
Starring: Noel Clarke, Colin O'Donoghue and Antonia Campbell-Hughes

Synopsis is here:

Storage 24 is a MacDonald's meal of a movie, in which it won't be particularly nourishing to a cinephiles palette, but at a stretch, it fills a hole. There's no need for bush beating here. The film is not original and wears, its love of Alien/Aliens on it's sleeve. It would have been nice for the film to have as much invention as Attack the Block, as it would have been great if its Roberts took full advantage of it's setting. However, I didn't have any animosity to Storage 24 as other website reviewers have had. Possibly because I'm the red headed stepchild of this blogging game.

Clarke himself has stated on the Kermode and Mayo wittertainment podcast that he had his own reservations and concerns on the opening segments of Joe Cornish's ghetto sci-fi feature and with fair point. The opening gambit of AtB wishes for a leap of faith that some may not be willing to take. We meet those protagonists as willing participants of a mugging. Storage 24 has Clarke writing himself as a suited sad sack, whose just been dumped out of a long term relationship. It's easier to take, and Clarke placement of himself in the lead role strives to show a similar element of turning convention on it's head as Ridley Scott's seminal creature feature. Clarke's Charlie is not something we often see of Black British characters in such genre cinema. In comparison to Cornish's aggressive Block characters, one can see what Clarke is trying to do. 


I kind of enjoyed this, along with many of the characters and their traits. I found enough conviction in them and their relationships to be invested in them. The film takes a mistake with a stock character, whose final quote doubles up as reference to Aliens, becomes their only worthwhile moment. Apart from this however, no one offends. Perhaps they should, as to perk the film up slightly. Every character follows the tropes as they should, which is fine, but also helps display why AtB polarised and appealed the way it did. 


The film does suffer from Johannes Roberts' clumsy visual direction, hack and slash editing and Clarke's sometimes ill advised humour. The humour screws with the overall tone and is sometimes badly timed. It also doesn't help distract from Roberts wish to shoot nearly all the film in awkward extreme close up. It's clear that the production value isn't too high but it seems that Roberts couldn't find enough ways around gaining atmosphere other than short focused face shots. It's a clear attempt to create a claustrophobic atmosphere, but the film itself doesn't gains a proper geography. The storage centre never becomes the labyrinthine entrapment it could be, merely becoming a one or two dusty rooms and a basement. You get the feeling that more could be done.

 However, as a low budget B movie, the film more or less delivers. Cheap CGI aside, I enjoyed the creature design and its mostly scant appearances. I didn't mind the practical effects either. Clarke is a little too charming for his misery guts character and yet his charisma does pulls us through the film. That Clarke has managed to work with Universal and get this produced says more about the film than the film itself. As flawed as Storage 24 is, Clarke's involvement reminds us of his intent.

Review: Prometheus

Year: 2012
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenplay: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Micheal Fassbender, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce

Synopsis is here

WARNING: As always I don't try and ruin plot to those sensitive to spoilers and the like. However, when talking about a film such as this one, what's nothing to one person could be something to someone else. So those who are worried, just avoid at all costs. Short review: I liked it, but...

A film like Prometheus is the perfect milestone to showcase the evolution of a director. Such a prospect is always appealing to me. It's a chance to see in what ways a filmmaker has progressed from their beginnings. You can take on board what they've learnt and now what they can now bring you and Ridley Scott's Prometheus is no exception. The first thing you witness with Prometheus, 33 years after the release of the film which allows this prequel to exist, is the scope.

Prometheus is a film about scale. The ideas behind it are grand in size. This is not just the visuals, which take you from the vast highlands of Scotland to the dank terraformed crevices of LV-233, but also in themes. Prometheus is about creation and how we perceive the very notion our own being. The question of how we would interact with those who may have made us, and how they would respond to us, is raised often. Like other sci-fi's before it, the film plays with the idea that if someone had created us, we may only be playthings or nuisance's.It's this desolate idea that brings the films anxiousness, even more so than the ozzing and/or the creature features. Prometheus, like another poignant sci-fi, Moon, is quick to tell us our own significance may only significant to ourselves.  The film toys with this through many of the dynamics of the characters. Layered amongst the hi-tech gadgetry and ozzing canisters,  three relationships touch upon basic concepts of how we relate to our own creators, family.

The first half of the film concentrates on such matters and takes it's time with such matters too. Prometheus is gradual with it's building blocks, with Scott trying to place pieces together like a chess strategy. These themes matched with Scott's wonderful visual eye (with some sublime cinematography from Dariusz Wolski) help show that Prometheus is a film that wishes to be warranted with a certain grandeur.

Such grandeur however comes with an unfortunate amount of weight. Despite it's posturing and exclamations from the director himself. Prometheus is still a chip from a larger milestone and there is a baggage it cannot shed for a matter of reasons. One can argue that this is not meant to be an "alien film", however, the film's references and echoes are not only as clear as day, but sometimes come across as clunky as some of the films dialogue and characterisation.

Prometheus almost threatens to fall apart in the second half of the film. There's a distinct sloppiness, that allows character inconsistencies, outlandishness and rushed revelations to take over. One example comes from an individual who provides two oddly placed, but stark, bait and switch moments, that just do not come naturally from the character themselves. One moment is a turn of heroism which sits awkwardly with moments we've seen.  A handful of characters are not integral to the plot, and are written in any particular way, making their outcomes feel quite necessary. Scott stated that there was only strands within the films DNA, but the films hectic climax seems all too hasty to tell us what universe this is all in.

It's been argued that the main characters are hard to care for. I don't think so, but I do feel that the film installs a coldness about them. Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw is not Ellen and isn't meant to be. However, the resilience of Ripley is replaced with a grating "true believer" who appears quick to distress and given a relationship that could have been given more depth. Other prominent roles from Charlize Theron (icy and determined), Idris Elba (cool captain) and Sean Harris (getting slightly typecast) are sketchy in terms of their writing, but are given more heft due to their performances. A creepy performance which stands out stems from Micheal Fassbender as David, who becomes the glue which tries to gel many of the pieces together despite his own schizophrenic actions within the film.

Flaws aside, Prometheus is at it's best when it does it's own thing. The film with it's talk of ancient gods, is really all abut the genes. One of the stronger threads is one the film shares with the Alien series, that the female of our species is quite simply the most vital and important link of our being is at times wonderfully explored as a visual metaphor. When the film ponders on the questions that we wish to ask our own "engineers" it excels. It's a shame that when the film captures symbolic moments, we're given the laymen's dialogue for the so called "slower" viewers of the audience.

Despite it's clear wish for grand gestures, Prometheus, does remind me just how tight and taut Alien was, whether it wanted to or not. This is not the horror, sci-fi hybrid many may expect, but it does strive for something intriguing. It doesn't go for out and out scares, but give out manage to bring forth a certain foreboding, and quiet distress around its pontificating (although it needs more Geiger). For now (until the directors cut raises it's head) Prometheus is an sometimes fascinating, sometimes frustrating artefact which is clearly ready to take some strides in it's own direction. It may just have to get rid of the facehugger snapping at it's heels.

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

Year: 2011
Director: Jon Favreau
Screenplay:  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell

Synopsis is here

When I first posted the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens on my facebook wall, my favourite reaction was from a good friend of mine who was perplexed by the sheer fact that the film had even been greenlighted. I must admit that I chucked at his outcry. As a film fan it's no real surprise to me that things like Cowboys & Aliens get made. One only needs such to search the the imdb for such cinematic delights such as I Know who Killed Me, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever or Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. They may considered badly executed ideas by many and there's a good chance that people considered them a bad idea beforehand too. The thing is if producers and/or executives think there's an audience out there for the idea, then they'll push for it. Often the wackiest ideas may work with a good mesh of crew, cast and vision. Often however we get crap like American Pyshco 2: All American Girl. The thing is, you cannot be sure until it's made.

Which brings us to Cowboys and Aliens, a film based on a comic book of the same name. Such a comic book sounds quite niche to a guy like me, however as so other film coming out appears to be connected to a comic book somehow, you can see where the exec suits were going with things. Add to the fact that you've got the western genre; a classic american genre and aliens (who seem to be cropping up everywhere at the moment) and I'm sure that the studio heads felt they had something special up their sleeves. The film hasn't set the box office alight as much as I feel the film makers would have liked, but it hasn't been a total failure. With this said however, after reading Mark Kermode's embittered article about modern movies I have started to ask myself when was the last time you felt a film really, truly flop?

So I guess I have to start talking about the film itself then don't I? And I'll start by stating the obvious, in that the film doesn't skimp on it's promise of Cowboys and Aliens. They all present and accounted for, hell there's even some Native Indians thrown in for good measure, the trouble is all these guys are piled together in a narrative that doesn't have the legs to make things work and are given set pieces that while pretty enough, seem to lack that punch and crunch that would make them stand out. The film is relatively fun at points but so unremarkable that I had to bore you with those over-long paragraphs above this one while I try and remember what happened in the film.

A lot of my issues with the film lie with the plot itself, in that I had no problem with the western aspect and would love more of it (seriously the idea of Ford and Craig in a straight western would have me drooling) but the sci-fi element feels clunky and shoehorned. Characters and information drop in and out at convenient moments and none of it feels organic. At one point a reveal is given that feels so frustratingly wedged in it's beyond annoying, particularly as a character has waited for such a ridiculous amount of time before mentioning the matter. Silly things happen in movies like this all the time (Think Independence Day = Apple Mac Virus) however if the momentums carries you and the action hits the sweet spots then we often don't realise. I know for a fact I don't. Despite what my reviews read, I don't consciously go looking for flaws. But if they're willing jump at you then clearly the film isn't doing it's job. The problem is that Cowboys and Aliens is only sometimes effective. Jon Favreau is not doing his best work here and it shows. It says a lot when I'm watching the competent yet vanilla set pieces of the film and thinking to myself how much more fun Rango* was than this.

The idea that the humans within the movie are severely underwhelmed  in terms of fire-power (save one element), never really comes into play. In fact it never feels like these characters are in any particular danger or worry. They have a goal and it all feels quite achievable. But then again considering the amount of cliché lines the film manages to turf out, I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of...well surprise.

So we thank the stars for the stars, in that Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are damn good at what they do, delivering presence. Both have the right amount of gravel in their faces to be believable cinematic cowboys. Ford's tetchy, guff and 12a rated racist Dolarhyde hits the mark consistently. Craig's stoic man with no name character mixes the characters volatile past with the quiet and intense and brooding nature that works. The less said about Olivia Wilde however, the better. An attractive actress, Wilde hasn't made a mark on me acting wise in any real way. In earlier films, this can be argued that they were just smaller roles. Now in films like Tron: Legacy and this she seems to be picking characters that are just boring in general and do nothing to stretch the talents she may hold. I really don't blame her, as some of the material in the larger films will get you noticed but unfortunately for some (especially for a few unfortunate Hollywood females) they may not doing anything for their craft.

But then again speaking of material, we're dealing with a film that has been handled by five different screenwriters. When the ratio gets that high, many often get weary. You can see why, with so many cooks looking to add elements to the broth, it's probably best just to play things safe.


*I watched Rango earlier this year but didn't blog it as I don't really review "kids" films. The thing is, Rango actually has more going on than a few of the blockbusters this year. I should have reviewed it.

Review: A V P: Requiem

Year: 2008
Director: The Streuse Brothers
Screenplay: Shane Salerno
Starring:Steven Pasquale, Reiko Aylesworth, John Ortiz, Johnny Lewis, Ariel Gade, Kristen Hager

Note: This review is written without knowledge of Predator 2.

Maybe there's something wrong with me, I don't know. Usually I leave movies like this unamused and not entertained in the slightest. However with this....somehow I came out....enjoying it. I won't go into the whole "you gotta switch your brain off" shite that everyone says as an easy way out as they don't like to get into real debates about movies.

It is a dumb movie, things go boom, people die and it's got movie monsters from way better films running around. But something about the film was...watchable. Maybe because I've become a less venomous cinepile in the last few months, maybe because I felt the directors tried harder with this film than Paul W.S Anderson's effort or maybe it was because I spent most of my time in a sex coma from the night before (due to an expensive hotel weekend in London thanks gf). I don't know...but I came out of AVPR with an OK feeling....

In compassion to the first cross over movie then films a godsend. It has a better storyline for one. All that shit about pyramids in the Arctic is out (seriously what?) and the plot has been dumbed down even more to give the film a slightly more back to basics feel.
The story follows on from the original film in which a alien/predator hybrid is born and causes havoc on the ship in which it was born in. After a brief chase an attacking predator shoots the shit of it's own ship trying to destroy this thing and the ship lands in a small American town where nothing ever happens. A death toll ensues.

It doesn't have the suspense of Alien or the Carnage of Aliens or Predator. But for me for some reason The film did it for me. I think I liked it's sadistic edge. I read a review which complained about children and pregnant women dying in the film "sickening" was the word he used. But seriously At least it had some guts. These creatures are vicious killing machines I want no mercy...unlike the first AVP with "understanding Predators".

The acting isn't Brando worthy but it's bearable. It's not as painful as some might think. What you see is what you get and you get nobodies trying, something I like more than somebodies not trying.

The film is what it is, a bunch of killer xenomoprhs and alien hunters trying to killer each other with humans getting in the way. No coming of age rituals, no pyramids under snow, no bullet time face huggers, just carnage (although it is quite moderate carnage)

The human characters aren't particularly warm but engaging enough despite being quite flat. The action itself is not the pinnacle of the series but like I said before.....bullet tme face huggers...WTF.

I enjoyed the references to the original films and the action was passable and while I am guessing it might have been the sex coma that made me like this somewhat, I still took more from this than the original film it sequels.

BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY! Maybe the dumbing down of cinema is finally getting to me or maybe I'm biding my time till There will be Blood. I silently cry in shame covered in my DVD's of better movies but hey everyone's allowed a guilty pleasure.