DVD Review: Palo Alto

Year: 2013 (U.K DVD release 2015)

Director: Gia Coppola

Screenplay: Gia Coppola

Starring: Emma Roberts, James Franco, Jack Kilmer, Nat Wolff

Synopsis is here:

If Palo Alto was the first film of disaffected youth of its kind, then there’s a good bet that guys like me would be spinning the hype machine at full tilt. It’s lounging, hazy transitions and navel gazing soundtrack are combined with crisp, cool compositions. The performances from the film's leads are naturalistic and the film as a whole holds a competence, that we wish all films we watch would all.

Despite this, Palo Alto is not unique and this fact really hurts it, when watched in contrast to features such as similar fare such as Alpha Dog (2007), Perks of a Wallflower (2012) or even Spring Breakers (2013), the film pales in comparison. Gia Coppola’s film, especially suffers when compared to grander feats, such as The Virgin Suicides (1999), directed by her Aunt Sophia or Rumble Fish (1984) by Granddaddy Francis Ford. The film shows she’s learned more than a few things from her kin, but has not yet obtained that clarity of vision that comes with others in her family.

Palo Alto isn’t bad. This collection of vignettes, based loosely on James Franco’s book, which meander around tales of casual sex, boozing and angst, is high on detail. Intimate moments are thoughtlessly mentioned during games of “I have never”. Uncomfortable announcements of virginity are made in front of the opposite sex by acquaintances. An act of oral sex in a parent’s bedroom sharply cuts to one participant gargling with mouthwash. Such drolly noted elements are well highlighted by Coppola which capture the looseness of these teens and the hang ups they hold.  

The neatly caught moments are small and the film holds less feeling than a decent episode of One Tree Hill. Films such as The Way Way Back (2013), The Spectacular Now (2013), and The Kings of Summer (2013) have performances equally as affecting. Meanwhile the likes of The Duplass Brothers, Joe Swansberg and the mumble core movement stripped back the aesthetic so much, in order to capture the rawness that inhabit their youthful (although usually slightly older) protagonists. The Mumblecore movement also brought more naturalistic, improvisational performances to the table. On the other end of the spectrum, Gia isn’t aiming for the dirt under the nails view of the like of Larry Clark, whose scuzzy debut; Kids (1995) held a similar wandering narrative, but still manages to connect with audiences 20 years on.

Palo Alto’s pastel pretty imagery and high school angst are relatively entertaining and the young cast handles themselves well against the Californian backdrop and high class cameos who flutter into scenes. However, it doesn’t deliver any new perspectives in the coming of age sub-genre which would place it into the upper echelons. Gia’s film may find its way into the hands of a hard-core group of followers who will find something in its scenes to praise. Yet after watching Sophia’s sly comment on alienated youth and materialistic values (2013’s The Bling Ring), it looks like Gia, while heading in the right direction, needs to take bigger steps.

Review: The Canyons

Year: 2013

Director: Paul Schrader

Screenplay: Bret Easton Ellis

Starring: Lindsey Lohan, James Deen, Gus Van Sant (for some reason)

Synopsis is here:

Dull is not a word that I would use to describe, Paul Schrader, Bret Easton Ellis or Lindsey Lohan and yet The Canyons is a subpar piece that can only be summed up by that word. Ellis’ twitter spats; Lohan’s drug hell or Schrader’s upbringing would bring more interesting tales to our attention. What we have here is an over egged piece of softcore trash gussied up to try and be more interesting that it actually is. Don’t look at me as if I dislike trash. I remember recording Wild Things onto VHS tape. I was around when Sky Movies seemingly had all there shoddy thrillers before Channel 5 moved in. I’d be happy if The Canyons had a shred of the schlocky fun that some of those films had. Unfortunately it’s a turgid mess.

We open to a montage of disused cinemas, possibly alluding to the decline of cinema, perhaps it’s aiming at an ideal even loftier. It doesn’t matter as the film never really brings the point home. If The Caynons was able to transplant its love for architecture on to its characters, we’d have something tangible to grab on to. But what can we say about the people that we follow in this feature? Is there anything that they say or do that is worth our time? Ellis has often written about vapid, cynical people, but they've never been bland.

It’s easy to attack The Canyons for the sake of it, like so many people who do with popular celebrities that they claim to hate. But the film is truly a poorly constructed one, in a year where similarly sordid tales have been release with greater focus. I was not the biggest fan of Harmony Korine’s florescent nightmare; Spring Breakers, yet that film was at least well crafted in its execution of hedonistic emptiness. The Caynons makes even a basic shot reverse shot exchange feel like a chore.

The problem is; one can pick up on the films issues from the get go. With its limit budget, amateur actors and troubled lead actress, you get the feeling that pickups and reshoots would never be the order of the day. Far too often it feels like every shot taken is the first and only one. It certainly feels like the case with James Deen whose Bateman-lite character comes across as completely unthreatening. Deen’s enthusiasm does not match his talent and his graceless display seems to stem from a lack of direction more than anything else.  Compare Deen’s Christian to the disaffected gaze of Sacha Grey in The Girlfriend Experience and there’s a clear gulf in the quality.

But then again we’re dealing with a film in which Schrader, unlike Soderbergh, does little to play to the strengths of everyone involved. The juxtaposition of outrageousness and emptiness that looms over the work of Ellis is never utilised, while the voyeurism that litters Ellis’ works is also badly executed. But The Caynons is not really about that complexity. Its simplistic script is weak when compared to Ellis’ more popular long reads. Frustratingly, there’s nothing in the film that elevates it above its limitations.

You might have noticed I’ve said little about the films main draw, Lindsey Lohan. Mostly because there’s not that much to say. The actress has garnered praise elsewhere, but I found nothing of true interest in the role. Her face; now altered by surgery and caked with make-up captures the burnt out impression which her character needs for the role, but her actual performance gives very little. Much like the rest of the film, Schrader’s lack of control and Ellis’ poor script leave Lohan up the creek without a paddle.

  

Review: Only God Forgives

Year: 2013

Director: Nicolas Windin Refn

Screenplay: Nicolas Windin Refn

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vithaya Pansringarm

Synopsis is here

A quick glimpse of the trailer for Only God Forgives, Cannes’ most recent infant terrible, reminded me of something that veteran web film reviewer and general twitterholic Scott Weinberg mentioned briefly on one of his many rants on the current state of cinema. As I didn't save the tweet, I’ll do my best to paraphrase: “If there are no reviews, you’ll only have the marketing telling you what to watch.” I'm sure there was more to it than that. Possibly more swear words, but I digress. His point is important for the simple fact that as much as critics/reviewers/bloggers get a bad rap (particularly as we often appear to be out of touch with the general audience), their job is to merely inform a viewer.

This does not just mean tell someone if the film is good or not. While that is of course a large majority of what they do, they should also try and provide a certain amount of context around the film at hand. Internet commentators and keyboard warriors may feel differently, but a world without them would have even more people happily parting their well earned cash with whatever flick Hollywood would like them to consume.  Yes, I'm trying to prove my own existence here, but seriously, now that trailers and posters have stopped trying to tell you that the films released actually differentiate from each other, it’s nice to maybe have a heads up, even if you don’t agree with the writer.

Getting back to the reason why you’re on this page, Only God Forgives is the latest movie from Nicolas Windin Refn, whose 2011 feature; Drive, gained a fair amount of praise and profit from all quarters, including. If you take anything away from my review it’s this, if you see a trailer/poster for this film and see the words “from the director of Drive” anywhere on it...I'm warning you now. That’s the marketing and not the film talking. While there’s some slight thematic connections between the films (although this seems to lean more towards Refn’s Valhalla Rising), Refn leaves the muscle cars and typical convention behind. This isn’t in the same ballpark as Drive. It’s not really even on the same planet.

Sparse, violent and deliberately paced; Only God Forgives, like A Field in England and Spring Breakers, is more interested in exercising mood than narrative. If walls could talk; the cheerless and shadowy corridors that inhabit Refn’s film, would say little about the decidedly typical revenge plot situated within the films Bangkok setting. They would however, be screaming hellishly of the bleak and corrosive souls that walk amongst the blood red walls. I feel they'd have more to say than the two aforementioned films.

American ex-pat Julian (Gosling) finds himself forced to confront the killer of his morally devoid brother by his incestuous mother (Kristin Scott Thomas channelling the sorority sister of Norma Bates and Janine 'Smurf'Cody). The murderer; Chang, is a self proclaimed angel of vengeance, who takes it upon himself to deliver swift and brutal justice to those he believes deserves it.

The film is less bothered with telling the story; instead it tries to entrap the viewer inside nightmarish, neon drenched purgatory. These characters are soaked in the guilt that they've created. Visceral imagery of bound or amputated hands becomes metaphors for pleasure or protection being denied or taken.  Vithaya Pansringarm plays Chang with an all knowing mysticism that’s hard to shake off. After delivering his violent sentences, he performs sickly sweet karaoke to his fellow officers who watch in straight faced silence. In doing this; is he trying and claim repentance? The film leaves such questions for the viewer.

Will the viewer respond to Only God Forgives? Hard to say. For me, it starts off a little forced before becoming a little too full of itself once or twice. A neon-lit Thailand? A film set in Asia that deals with honour and vengeance?  Even the gloomy, never flinching face of Ryan Gosling makes a few of its elements feel a tad too commonplace.  

Yet throughout I found myself enthralled by its imagery and absorbed by the sheer absurdity. I found myself caught up within the rhythms of its dark, blistered heart. I caught glimpses of pity, drip through the lavish production design, perfectly framed shots and stained souls that wander these damp, darkened Bangkok halls. For those who are willing to let it in, they maybe something in the films dankness that they may be willing to embrace.  If the walls could talk, they’d tell you that their screams get muffled by marketing posters.  

Review: Spring Breakers

Year: 2013
Director: Harmony Korine
Screenplay: Harmony Korine
Starring: Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Rachal Corine, Ashley Benson, James Franco

Synopsis is here

It's been a while since I left a cinema screen with pretty much every other viewer hating what they had just seen. I had to laugh as considering the film, it was almost an inevitable. Harmony Korine's arthouse, wannabe B movie didn't leave me so angry. Nor did I leave it feeling the opposite. Spring Breakers' shallow mixture of greasy glam and titillation left me lackadaisically indifferent. I feel this is far worse than some of the exuberant glee I've read or venomous hate I saw, because those feelings would be considered "the point" by the cool kids. Like I've hinted at before in this blog, I was never a cool kid so all you'll get here is shrugs.

From the start it seemed that the poor audience were set up for a fall. The trailers before the film were Scary Movie 5 and The Hangover: Part 3. The T.V spots and trailers give off a glimmering vision of neon, adolescent heaven, where every day is dubstep and boobs. Everything seemed to be trying to attract a certain type of audience expecting a certain type of movie. Korine isn't really interested in the gloss, although it does feature quite heavily. Spring Breakers appears to be more of a skewed, grubby version of The American Dream as seen by a girl group raised on slick surface and MTV.

Despite its gaudy dress up, Korine provides some interesting ideas.Themes of black masculinity and hedonism as religion creep up on you. Meanwhile; the film's imagery highlights the director’s love for the abstract and poetic. Dialogue and visuals are juxtaposed and repeated at different points providing a near cycular effect. These girls are bored of doing drugs and handstands in their dorms but feel that the change of venue provides a new philosophical bent on their snorting and amateur gymnastics. These circles ripple we see not only the small microcosm of the girls but of the violence they experience and the culture they wish to embrace. Spring Break is represented as a never-ending pulsing haven in which the beer never stops flowing and girl on girl action is always round the corner.

However, while the Skrillex and Clint Mansell soundtrack (remember the drum and bass in Pi?) do their best to keep the tone and energy up, Spring Breaker becomes fidgety, frustrating and over involved in its own importance. It's clear that Korine is having a massive joke about certain genre conventions and ideas but he doesn't seem bothered in his audience’s engagement. Don't expect much from the cyphers that are considered characters here. Much has been said about Vanessa Hudgens and Selena Gomez departure from their Disney roots, but Korine is more interested that the actors are who they are than placing any effort to make the roles they play stand out for any other reason. James Franco's Alien, strangely reminds me of Heath Ledger's turn in Lord of Dogtown, but unlike Ledger, I felt Franco does fully lose himself in the role. Squint a bit, and he's still James. 

An indulgent and fussy piece which mixes the divine (the girls doing ring around the roses with shotguns is an unbelievable image) with the tedious, Spring Breakers like Korine's earlier Gummo brings an honest and different look to typical proceedings. Unfortunately much like the head bending pieces of the likes of Lynch or even the aggressive manoeuvres Korine's own idol Herzog, the film does little to reach any emotional height. I don't feel that the film is "gash" or "shit", like I heard everyone else exclaim amongst leaving the theatre. The problem is I can't see me watching the film again to see if it's anything else.