Review: Blue Jasmine

Year: 2013

Director: Woody Allen

Screenplay: Woody Allen

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay, Peter Sarsgaard, Michael Stuhlbarg, Louis C.K.

Synopsis is here

The annual Woody Allen feature comes to us with a performance so strong it beggars belief. I don’t care for awards season, but for those out there who have stumbled upon this tiny blog who hold interest I will say this: Cate Blanchett should have 2013’s best actress all wrapped up. If someone else wins over Blanchett then I must congratulate them, as they've toppled a performance of some magnitude.

Blanchett’s Jasmine is a hurricane of destruction and delusion it is difficult look away from. It’s always exciting to someone take a film by the scuff of the neck and dictate things like a conductor. However I found Blanchett to be so strong, that even the other solid displays felt dwarfed.  Allen brings together a multi-faceted cast that engages well with the material. But Blanchett, she just blows them away.       

Blue Jasmine at heart is a tale about someone who can be happy with a little and someone who despairs despite once having a lot. Self absorbed and pretentious; Jasmine is a difficult character to feel for. Told in flashback, we find that Jasmine is held together by the riches of her husband.  Everything is about stature and branding. We notice she changed her name due to money. She looks down her nose at her sister and fiancé with the kind of condensation you only ever find from those who are far too privileged for their own good. There’s insidiousness in the way Jasmine feels the need to tell her sister that she can do better. At no point do we feel that what is said is done for the good of anything other than Jasmine’s self satisfaction. Little bothers her, because material keeps her warm at night. We also think it keeps her oblivious to important matters at hand.

When we find Jasmine in the present and uncover the reasons of why she’s visiting her sister, we notice just how fragile her ignorance and finance have made her. Jasmine is a fractured creature that would get on well with Penelope Cruz’s Maria, whose emotional imbalance heightened the tone of Allen’s Vicky Christina Barcelona. However while that film joyfully played with Latin melodrama, here we only have spite to comfort us.

As the film plays on, Blanchett’s pained performance breaks through so much of the films other segments. Blanchett switches from distant to destructive to switched on in a blink of an eye, and cuts through much of the humour (the support is engaging yet cartoony in characterisation) that tries to diffuse the drama. As the film continues on, we notice just how troubled Jasmine has become. I struggled with the films humour unlike the snorting and snarky audience I watched it with, who had no trouble. Jasmine isn’t pleasant, but it’s hard not to find pathos as Jasmine becomes more unhinged.

That said, Allen’s poor people are doing A-ok while rich people pay for their sins comes across a little false. Despite Allen’s provocative use of form (Jasmine is often bathed in golden hues, or blocked out of focus during certain plot turns ), he never takes his idea as far as he can. We have a conceit in which the high class wives of the financial elite have just as much to hide has their criminal husbands. Allen places a cynical turn on the phase “behind every good man is a good woman” but does little to convince us of his conviction. This loose, modern day telling of A Streetcar named desire squarely lands us amidst the spectre of the economic crash, but fizzles out without wanting to take a good clean stab at the issue. It’s too bad, as Blanchett is more than willing to make the effort.        

Review: Side Effects

Year: 2013
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay: Scott Z Burns
Starring: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Catherine Zeta Jones

Synopsis is here

If the rumours are true (and the interviews point towards yes), it seems that Side Effects will be Steven Soderbergh's final theatrical feature. Threatened once before but now looking much more definite, the announcement is an intriguing one. At age 50; the chameleon-like director still looked like he had a lot more in him. This said, the film maker has stated he is tired of the format and would rather spend his time painting.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. A television interview on CBS with Quentin Tarantino had the motor mouth director mention his worry of becoming "out of touch" as he got older. Some could say that he may have a point. There's nothing wrong with going out on a high, and while others may draw attention to some elder statesmen who have placed some decent turns in their career "twilights". I doubt many would pick those later films over the likes of Taxi Driver, Manhattan, One Flew over the Cukoo's Nest, M.A.S.H and the list goes on.

So Soderbergh has decided to end the career here. Not with a bombastic, mega multi dollar showcase (imagine Ocean's 14), but with a tightly controlled psycho thriller which highlights not only the assured direction of the director, but the themes that have followed him throughout an industrious career. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who noticed that a few of the films revelations rely on sex, lies and videotape.

Sharply placed against the backdrop of big pharmacy and insider trading, Sodenbergh carefully blends topical issues to create near plausible horrors. Before the outrageous mechanics of the final third take hold, we are exposed a nightmare of dubious after effects, presumed wrong doings and shady double takes. Framed in a dreamy soft focused haze, nearly every shot in Side Effects (Sodenbergh lenses' the film under the name Peter Andrews) layers a tinge of self doubt within a viewer. You notice that much like a drug addled mind, the world around these characters are blurred and obscured. Sometimes only the character is in focus. Yet even so, their words bring no clarity. 

Soderbergh's tricky thriller does much to prime us correctly so even the films more lurid moments later on have a feeling of plausibility. This has much to do with the films two leads as well as its smart direction and scripting. Jude Law hasn't been this watchable for years, getting the subtle ruthlessness of his character down to a tee. Yes, he comes to the aid of an ill woman, but like a Coen's movie, notice just how quickly he's willing to snap at the dangling carrot. Rooney Mara is even better. Showing her display in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo wasn't a fluke, she acing every scene with the ability to managing to be scared and scare at the same time.

Whether or not Soderbergh leaves the cinematic world, he has undoubtedly made a sizable dent in it. Side Effects shows the work of a craftsman: assured, accomplished and solidly built. He could be tired of the format; he could hold the same fears as Quentin. Either way his swan song makes sure he goes out flying. 

Review: John Carter

Year: 2012
Director: Andrew Stanton
Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe

Synopsis is here:

The goings on behind John Carter, remind me much of situations that have happened in places where I've worked. Here, we have an expensive product (reportedly over $250 million) that has a uncertainly in it's success, despite similar commodities having large amounts of achievement. A bunch of cooks  (executives, marketing and the like) who are all chopping and changing the recipe, despite appearing to hold their own reservations to the broth itself. There's is a braying, foaming at the mouth mob (we call them the consumer), seemingly waiting to rip the product to sheds. And at the end of all this, there is a director who honestly wants to do the best job he can.

John Carter (formerly of Mars) has so many disparaging factors attacking it from all sides that one was never really surprised at it's revenue stream. Many are debating the films financial success, but all in all, it's save to say that the film hasn't impressed as hoped. But then again how could it? With all the name altering, release shifting and weak marketing, Carter had seemingly lost it's voice before it even began. Let's not lie to ourselves. Despite the original story being a foundation of so much the fanboys hold dear, this attempt, with it's lack of known names and third world debt busting budget, was always going to be a tall order. But with so much nonsense surrounding it, at no point did any of the elements look to combine to create one true vision. All this and I've not yet got on to the bloody film itself.

John Carter (of Mars, Barsoom, whatever) is a film which is as flawed as it is entertaining and as earnest as it is erratic. For every character moment which sparked interest in me, there was juncture based on quite weak motivation. It's ambition clearly shows throughout, and yet it still feels slashed to try and fit everything in. With this said, the film still feels lengthy and yet you're never quite sure why it does. Sub-plots appear streamlined for a sequel not yet green lighted for a sequel Disney have not yet entered on to the franchise farm. However; if a sequel were to appear, I'd happily pay money to see it.

The thing is; while everything doesn't hang together as gracefully as you would hope, (American Civil War! Now MARS! Now Roman style Colosseum antics! An eternally lengthy Royal Wedding!) John Carter didn't bore me, as it jumped haphazardly from point to point. And why would it? Stanton's film; gives us a lead character who has enough heroism and appeal to keep investment. True, the first time Taylor Kitsch opens his mouth, his gravelly voice is more than a little gigglesome, and much of his reasoning behind his actions are muddled and murky at best. Despite this, Kitsch gives his performance his all and it clearly shows. As does the turn from Lynn Collins, whose display will remind many of Princess Leia, like so many characters of such an archetype.

Everyone in the film are so engaged in the situation, you just wish everything could be a bit more clear. We have three different tribes, all fighting, but for reasons that the audience are merely asked to bypass. The films antagonist (Brit villain for hire Mark Strong), is the type of heartless, immoral bastard that you you will love to hate. However, the film underplays the nefarious nature of the events that occur, much like the reasons for Carter to join the war that is taking place. When reasoning arises, it comes across mealy mouthed and unimportant. It just doesn't match the energy of the characters.

This brings frustration as when the film hits the mark, it strikes strong. A wonderful set piece involving Carter fighting for his life, intercut with his own personal back story is a moment I found emotionally overwhelming (all of the set pieces I enjoyed). It's old fashioned style towards everything is also welcoming. There is no pandering to modern trends; and this alone, gives the film a strange freshness about it despite the story itself being technically older than the films that have come before this movie (if that even makes sense). The films humour is also quite charming.

It's a shame we've been spoilt visually in the past however, as Avatar looms large over Stanton's industrious effort. The film is good looking and stylish in it's own right (despite that bloody orange/teal colour palette), but it just cannot match the efforts that take place in James Cameron's beautifully realised vision. It is; however, much more of a match, in its story. Despite both featuring the same archetypes within them, John Carter's various tribes, space travel and mixture of sci-fi and period history appears to be much more dense and enjoyable than Cameron's grunts on Pandora.  There is a richness in between the lines that could have been further unlocked were it not for all the mitigating factors that the film clearly had issues with. The development hell faced, along with the need to be a franchise can clearly be seen within John Carter.

I can say however, I was never bored with John Carter. I always wanted to know what came next, enjoyed its sense for adventure and its banter. Carter didn't reach the truly epic scale I had hoped, but by no means did it truly disappoint itself. It's a damn shame that all the pottering about the money, the release date, the marketing and everything in-between, have not allowed the film to breathe. John Carter isn't perfect but wear its flaws, like its heart, on its sleeve and goes down fighting.

NOTE: I'm not in Marketing. If I was I would have simply gone down this route: "Before avatar, before star wars route, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) takes you to Mars!" I don't know how that would work. But like I said, I'm not in marketing.