REVIEW: A Touch of Love

Year: 1969

Director: Waris Hussein

Screenplay: Margaret Drabble

Starring: Sandy Dennis, Ian McKellan

 

Synopsis is here:

 

It’s always something when a film you know little about opens to be a small gem of a movie. I found A Touch of Love to be a stirring affair. From a technical point of view, there’s nothing remarkable about it. At first, the film struggles to find footing for 40 minutes of its running time. Suddenly the right gear is found, and things soon fall into place.  What could have been an upscaled kitchen sink drama becomes a touching and progressive feminist feature. It grows into a film with striking emotional earnestness, something unexpected from its pedestrian beginnings.

A Touch of Love starts disconcertingly. It opens with the lead protagonist Rosamund (Sandy Dennis), discovering she’s pregnant and making a hasty decision to terminate the pregnancy. A chance arrival of close friends derails her decision. When Rosamund decides almost on a whim to keep the child, the film becomes a mosaic. It leaps back and forth in time, giving background to Rosamund, the men in her life, and her family before leading to the occasion of her pregnancy: a one-night stand with a young news presenter (Ian McKellan in his film debut). With Rosamund’s decision to have the child, the film centres on her balancing the care for her child while trying to maintain her studies at the British Museum. The film soon finds focus, with Rosamund having to navigate a strange world of systems seemingly designed to work for those not in her unique situation.

Films depicting shifting cultural attitudes like Alfie (1966) and Darling (1965) may be more dynamic in their approach. Yet Sandy Dennis’s deceptively complex performance as Rosemond makes A Touch of Love worthy of a mention alongside the more infamous swinging sixties features.  1969 must have been a strange year for the actress, finding herself as the cornerstone of two distinctive flops. Dennis’ balance of brittle and fierce tenacity is the driving force that propels both A Touch of Love and Robert Altman’s That Cold Day in the Park. The latter film has her character slip into a murderous personality disorder through an apparent repressive family backstory. In A Touch of Love, Dennis’ Rosamund is a strongwilled, feminist character study. While her exterior exhibits the similar fragility of Altman’s film, Dennis ensures that Rosamund is a rather steely unknown quantity who only seems to allow us in when she wishes. She keeps her male acquaintances at a distance, staying non-committal to them as they never seem to give her what she desires. But she's willing to stand up against their behaviour when needed.  The inner conflict makes her brief relationship with George more intriguing as his coding marks him out as a closeted homosexual. The young McKellan plays George with all the charm you expect the then-young thespian would. And his charisma helps draw tension to their sometimes-awkward interactions while further marking out the changing cultural times.

Waris Hussein was already no stranger to cultural shifts. Hussein made his name as the first director of Doctor Who, turning down a lucrative overseas job with the BBC to work at their home office. Hussein was not only one of the first non-white directors at the BBC but also a gay Indian man. It’s of little shock that he’s in sync with the sensibilities of this issue-led drama. Hussein’s film is not one for technical flair. The camera knows where it needs to be placed, with very few visuals being particularly eye-catching.  But Hussein mines the actors well for confident, dramatic moments. Perhaps the most affecting sequence involves Rosamund battling out-of-touch nurses for the right to see her daughter after a potentially life-threatening operation. The menacing about the scene is the underlying thought of nurses doing their best to keep a single mother away from her child. Simply because they abhor her unconventional lifestyle. It’s never said outright, but something between the facial exchanges with the female staff seems to make the implication. Hussein ensures A Touch of Love thrives in its dramatic moments, even within the film’s more wayward beginnings.

Amicus Productions produced A Touch of Love. The company, more known for its cheap horror films than anything else, managed to ensure that the film made a profit by selling it to distributors for more than its cost. Later, producer Max Rosenberg claimed that A Touch of Love was the best film Amicus ever made. Despite its flaws, A Touch of Love shows that it is a text more ahead of its time than perhaps the then-present-day audience gives it credit for.  What appears to be a humdrum melodrama about a repressed wallflower blooms into a fascinating insight into a woman’s right to choose her path. A Touch of Love is a deceptive moniker for such a film. It has far more than a touch to express.

A Touch of Love is available on Blu-ray from 17th March.

Dug what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

Article: The Marvellous Number Game

The discourse is dead. Long live THE DISCOURSE. Only a day after a rather needless spat allegedly on the idea of film critics and class, we are slapped in the face by the new Captain Marvel trailer and the unbelievably "spicy takes" which come with it. Below is the trailer and the very strange reaction that’s been gained by one person:

In the first Captain Marvel trailer, Samuel L. Jackson's character has 67 words. Brie Larson's character, i.e. Captain Marvel, has 33.

Come on, Marvel. https://t.co/vsqZlvv9Z8

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) September 18, 2018

We're really down to counting words in a trailer?
C'mon... She's badass.
If the trailer was images of him TALKING about her I'd agree. Instead it shows her as a badass superhero. I'm good with that. It's gonna show another powerful woman that people already love from the comics!

— Jann Gobble (@jgobble) September 18, 2018

So you don't think that the presence or absence woman's voice matters in a trailer about a woman superhero. Okay. Noted. Congrats on your completely appalling take.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) September 18, 2018

I get it, I really do...and we don't agree - and for that I am sorry that "my take" offends you.

I just am glad the movie was FINALLY made! I'm glad so many superhero women movies are being made now - and/or being remade. It's a needed change and one long overdue!

— Jann Gobble (@jgobble) September 18, 2018

Melissa McEwan, editor in chief of Shakesville.com, a progressive feminist blog decided that after counting the amount of dialogue uttered by characters within the trailer, the fact that Samual L Jackson's Nick Fury had more lines than Brie Larson's title character was a clear reason to call shenanigans. Never mind that the trailer is clearly set up in a way to provide the character an air of mystery by one of the characters which helped formed the glue of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The sheer fact that a man had more lines than a woman in her own trailer was contemptuous. When the tweet was queried by a fan, their well meaning arguments were dismissed as appalling. Because even though the film may not even have its runtime figured out yet, Marvel must do better because sexism.

To question the methods of populist films is something that pop culture writers should critique and provide insight. Screen time and the vocal representation of gender and minority characters should most definitely be notified. Captain Marvel comes in after the Warner Bros hugely successful Wonder Women and as Marvel Studios’ first female-led superhero feature, it’s a film with very high, very particular expectations.

However, the age of twitter takes, instaopinion and microanalysis has created a platform of dubious, broken narratives that look to derail movies before they even get a chance to be watched. This quick take tweet comes across as one example. I have no doubt that Captain Marvel's movie will have Brie Larson's Carol Danvers character front and centre, yet McEwan hot take is so obnoxious that a person like myself is more switched off by her than an apparent meagre word count. Melissa's fans have highlighted her as a smart and insightful writer, whose writing on feminism is worth reading. However, it only takes one thing to switch someone off. For McEwan, it’s the bizarre idea that Captain Marvel will be about Nick Fury after counting the words to a two-minute trailer. For me, it’s the idea that something so myopic is worth being outraged about. Especially if the writer is unapologetically doubling down. 

At the same time, another Twitter member, whose name isn’t really worth mentioning decided to partake in some dubious trolling purposely designed to “trigger to snowflakes”. The “gag” involved some quick photo editing to change images of non-smiling Larson to display a cheesy grin. The idea? Female heroes should “smile more”. Despite the fact that male heroes are not asked the same thing. 

The problem is, both tweets land themselves in the same wheelhouse. Deliberating about the vocal representation of the main title character in a promotional advertisement designed not only to provide a broad description of the overall movie but to also proposes that we will need to actually see the movie to obtain the full picture, comes across as outrage for the permanently outraged. Good critiquing can be an entertaining as well as a thoughtful process, whereas ignorant hot takes such as these can suck the very joy out of those caught in the vortex. Just because we are progressive does not mean we aren't also ignorant at times. We must also think what chance does a film have if these are the battles we're looking to fight for?

I do not condone the vile insults which flowed from the thread soon after the tweet was sent, but I do find it eye-rollingly irritating to see a progressive feminist writer go down the route more used by the same faceless trolls who would be all too quick to lambast her. We all watch movie trailers. Characters you expect to have larger roles have significantly less to do. Scenes are rearranged and chopped, and in a situation like Captain Marvel, it’s no surprise that a character of the universe who is familiar to the audience would “take centre stage” in order to introduce a character.  

An interesting opinion that came up (that I'm not sure I would ascribe to) is that the thought is yet another example of "white feminism" in which the idea of Jackson’s Nick Fury, despite being a Marvel character with the most number of info-dumps, should be subdued so the pretty white girl should have more lines than the POC character no matter the situation. Once again highlighting the problematic issues that have dogged the current generations debates of Intersectionality and whether people really care about minorities. For the most part, I think most people do.  

So you’re implying that the Caucasian character should have more dialogues than the African American one? Sounds oppressing to me 🤔

— Stencho Poncho (@StenchoPoncho) September 20, 2018

Comments such as McEwan’s feels less like a sharp insight and more like snide comments in an out-of-place framework. Chadwick Boseman’s T’Challa has no words in the first Black Panther trailer. Most of which is of two white characters talking about where the character is from as opposed to the character himself. The original spider-man trailer (pulled for its use of the Twin Towers) not only has a wordless Spider-Man but a Spider-Man who doesn’t turn up until late on into it’s very short run time. Due to the nature of the 1989 Batman film, Jack Nickleson has far more play than Michael Keaton. Such examples make McEwan’s comments feel more like the so-called manufactured outrage, that certain groups love to claim progressive indulge in.

As the online culture wars rage on we see more tools and projects which help us engage with the media around us. Methods such as The Bechdel Test as well as Every Single Word Spoken project (which deal with tally lines of dialogue spoke by minorities) for example are particularly helpful with emphasising marginalisation. However, they rightly can come under criticism of being utilised as complete cultural barometers for films. Amusingly, the Captain Marvel trailer is of course great news for black African American’s as Jackson occupies so much of its word count. Of course, these methods of evaluating those who are maligned are effective when used correctly and in the right context. Like within a whole feature for instance. 

Knee-jerk reactions like McEwan’s only muddy waters. Going through the thread, the tweets did nothing to engage any real debate or concern. It did, however, do lots to agitate those with cartoon faced avatars as well as many black and white feminists who seemed pissed that a female writer with a large following is needlessly dumping on Marvel’s first female feature for no other reason than the word count. Speaking of which. This post has gone on way too long. So how about some trailers to finish?   

Review: Cinderella

Year: 2015

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay: Chris Weitz

Starring: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Sophie McShera, Holliday Grainger, Helena Bonham Carter

Synopsis is here:

To paraphrase from another, well-loved Disney adaptation, this is a tale as old as time. This 2015 version of Cinderella is a live action take on the Disney telling of the well-known story. Despite the director’s talk of subversion, this film’s rebellion takes its form in actually being part of the status quo. Disney’s original take was made in 1950 and this version seeks to reiterate what was said before. The idea seems to be that Cinderella’s traditional approach should be able to stand tall against the more progressive themes of the likes of Frozen.

There’s been some interesting think pieces which have been quick to pick up on the film’s lack of progression. I do believe there is an importance to this, considering just how influential and successful the Frozen juggernaut has become.       

To have Tasha Robinson question the passive nature of the film is understandable. I do the same with the likes of Harry Potter or Twilight. Yet the hostility and tone towards being nice and awaiting princes at a film which is trying to be as earnest as possible about the idea of being nice is more than a little strange when we are looking at a film which is being targeted at those who are still in single digits. I’m not the biggest fan of some of the subject matter that appears within the film. Yet if I have a kid, I know I can argue my case with them. I remember my parents taking me to Sunday school, but I also remember them informing me of other religions. The same thing applies, I feel.  

I’m more worried about how much of this fairy tale fluff finds its way into more adult fare. When the likes of Bridget Jones and Sex in the City try and maintain such ideals when we have built discerning tastes and should know better than in a bland simple fantasy. One of the reasons I tend to stay away from writing about films aimed squarely at kids is due to how jaded we as adults can be towards such material as Cinderella. While I do feel that in our modern age, it would have been more interesting to have seen a female writer/director take the reign of the project in terms of agency, we are now expecting subversion in films which are clearly set up to try and deflect the cynicism we endure throughout our day to day life? I don't write to offer all the answers, but I do wonder how many kids would read such writing and raise an eyebrow.

I think my issue is that no matter how traditional this film plays things, it is still in essence a kids' piece. I do feel, however despite my previous mansplaning in the above paragraphs, I must admit that Branagh’s feature is a bland one. The film’s casting and art design show that the production had finance to burn, and it all finds its way to the screen. Kudos must go out to Customer designer Sandy Powell and production designer Dante Ferretti (a Scorsese regular) for the building of the world. We also must thank Cate Blanchett for giving the world some energy. Unfortunately Downton Abbey’s Lily James’ breathy performance and Game of Throne’s Richard Madden’s toothy charm evaporate pretty quickly. Meanwhile Branagh does little to stir the pot emotionally or visually to make the film any more the sum of its parts.

The film’s robust box office earnings suggests that we still live in a world where pot stirring isn’t the way to go. Despite feminist criticisms and my own indifference, Cinderella offers a similar stance to Fifty Shades of Grey. The subject can be questioned and yet the desires for the fantasy still remains. As bland as I may find this film as a piece of entertainment – and believe me it really doesn’t go anywhere - I do feel that Disney’s shrewdness has paid off, and not just because there is a Frozen animated short played in front of the main feature. Although having that short in front gives the target audience a powerful characteristic: The right to choose. 

Review: Gone Girl

Year: 2014
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Gillian Flynn
Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens

Synopsis is here

Normally when I'm sitting in my hometown's mall cinema, I'm gritting my teeth at the level of inane chatter that stems from people with their "unlimited cards". For me there's nothing more frustrating at a cinema than an audience who spend more time talking to each than the watching the movie. My screening of Gone Girl on its theatrical opening was different. Yes, there were audible mutterings, but for once this was because everyone watching was absorbed with what was on the screen. Not only was I enthralled by David Fincher's spiralling thriller, but liberated at just how tuned in everyone was for the movie and its many twists. This wasn't the annoying, idle chit chat that grates, irritatingly on the ears. No, this was the rumblings of the post credit debate which had started before the film had finished. The audience were all part of the page turner. There's not many recent films that can do that.

There's a lot of Fincher's 10^th feature to spoil, so I'll do my best to tread lightly on the narrative (however, note my warning of Spoilers) Films like this is one of the reasons I usually link the synopsis as opposed to writing it into the review. Any of the film's plot points could be a spoiler filled booby trap. So let's just say that Nick Dunne's (Affleck) wife, Amy (Pike) is missing, but all is not what it seems when it comes to her disappearance.

This is Fincher is pure pulp mode. Collaborating with cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth for the fourth time, Gone Girl is a film inflected with dark, noir-like imagery to match the films expose of a modern marriage which is decaying from the inside. The film's narrative is outrageous in the same way as OTT 90's thrillers such as Basic Instinct, but the films detached central couple, tap into that similar social crawl space of 'Jack' and Tyler Durden of Fincher's own Fight Club (1999), there's something eerily familiar about The Dunne's alienation. A creepy invasive feeling that connects with us in a way that we wish it didn't. The same way we wanted Tyler do blow everything sky high.

As the characters peel back each of their layers, trust suddenly becomes fluid. Each scene makes you question the last. Kirk Baxter's exquisitely timed editing gives lasts a split second less than you would have hoped. Time that would give away an awkward glance or to probe a clue for longer. Fincher's film primes us for this with its slightly too quick opening credits. We don't gain a clear image. We don't see everything, even when shown.

Working together with the novel's writer, Gillian Flynn, Fincher merrily toys with aspects of the book's structure to allow twists to occur parallel with other events. The issues of family become streamlined (ultimately lessening motives of certain characters), but the implications and scrutiny of the media is played up, made Meta and made even more tangible. Gone Girl beautifully allows Affleck to comment on his own relationship with the media as well as subconsciously taking pot shots at Robin Thicke, just because. The bolstering of the media slant is notable because it allows Fincher and the film's characters to play in a world in which image is indeed everything.

This is certainly true when we consider the so called failings of the film's gender politics. Gone Girl has been considered misogynist in certain circles and indeed for a film that explores an ugly marriage, it does seem to lean on the side of men. Yet as we move into a world in which ideas of femininity are becoming more intense, it does frustrate that so many of the think pieces that appeared after the film's release seemed to jump on the idea that the film clearly promotes rape culture as opposed to seeing a film which illustrates (many) complex women of the agency. It's understandable that we don't want to keep casting a negative eye over women in the film, but I'm also troubled by the idea that we are not allowed to have troubling women. The thriller is interesting because of its complications and dynamics between the film's women, with the film's most telling scenes displaying two women as the smartest people in the room while the males cluck around them and hold their balls.

Affleck and Pike head up a specifically cast, which highlights the best features of each member. Affleck has always been a decent self-affecting straight man (see: Changing Lanes) while Pike's mix of cool girl and ice queen has been something noted since her appearance as a Bond Girl. Without saying too much, she is dangerously effective in this role. Even the smaller roles are smartly picked. Carrie Coon is quietly tragic. Tyler Perry has a funky charm about himself while Kim Dickens has not garnered enough plaudits for her tough cookie cop role of Detective Rhonda Boney. There's also a knowing nod to How I met your Mother's Barney in the casting of Neil Patrick Harris as the wonderfully Naïve ex-boyfriend Desi.

Gone girl is not Fincher's best film, but it certainly is one of its most winking, with the film summing up the crumbling of a modern relationship in the most OTT way possible, but also doing a decent job of portraying a decimated Middle America which reanimates to an inhuman form by the pervading of the media. The Ace in the Hole style observations feel even more cutting than we give credit for as we observe a broken society that is easily forgotten while it glares mesmerised by flashing bulbs and gossipy chatter of a missing person who has the image of having it all. The film isn't perfect, with its resolution feeling slightly more obtuse than it should be. The novel also understands the headspace of these people more, while the film has a feel of punches being pulled. But there's clearly a reason why I saw Gone Girl twice. It's a delectably dark piece of entertainment.

 

 

 

Review: Sucker Punch

Year: 2011
Director: Zack Synder
Screenplay: Zack Snyder, Steve Shibuya
Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn

Synopsis is here

Sucker Punch wishes to be a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma; full of dream within dream logic and ambiguous moments. To all critics bitching about sexism and female empowerment well Zack has flipped the script on you people! Babydoll maybe dressed in a school girl uniform but it's no way exploitative. This film is clearly is a full indictment of such easy to go to thoughts so say the Synder himself.  One of the most insightful commentaries on the movie I read was by Scott Mendelson who asked in his second article on the film: "Is is possible to make a female-driven action fantasy without falling prey to certain misogynistic messaging?" This is one of the most observant questions asked about the movie I've seen. The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes but Sucker Punch is not a good example of one.

I like the point that is trying to be put across by certain supporters of the film. We should be able take in women in action films in many other ways than what we usually expect. The problem is that the characters within Sucker Punch are completely formless. They are simply mannequins dressed up in fishnets and school uniforms. What have these women have to say other than the fact that they're attractive and shoot guns? That's my problem. I don't feel bad for these girls being abused; it's not that I'm aroused by these girls and their outfits, but because for the most point I was bored. Clear and simple. It's great to have all these arguments about female empowerment and what the films all about, my issue is Snyder doesn't give me the characters or the story to make the talk that important.

Here is a film that isn't as clever as it wishes to be. The first problem is I knew exactly where this film was going the moment we enter the asylum. We have a plot that's not only on rails but with the only "surprise" being that we have a gang of girls kicking ass other anything else. It's all very well stating that it's us the audience who have dressed the girls up in these cliched fetish gear, however, if you have five girls that have no character then of course people are going to pick on the fantasy costumes. Especially if everyone in the movie are all talking about the feminine aspect.

What Synder places all his effort in his is action sequences that may feel derivative if your a video gamer but they have a sense of place that has been missing from action films for so long it's unreal. If one thing Synder doesn't get credit for is that, while he overuses slow motion and speedramping, at least I know what I'm watching. The set pieces are impressive on their own, they are unfortunately draped around generic "lets get to here to go here" screenplay, full of stilted dialogue and performed very flatly by it's young cast.

There's also the problem of consistency. While speaking to a colleague on facebook, he stated that he felt that Snyder is only as good as his source material. Sucker Punch helps give such a statement an element of truth. Watchmen and 300 were films that had Snyder bound by the source. The wonderful (now defunct) Creative Screenwriting had a great episode with writer David Hayter detailing Snyder's fight to keep almost everything in Watchman to the spec of the comic. Here in Sucker Punch Snyder has carte blanche and it shows. We have fire breathing dragons, Steampunk Nazi zombies, Ninjas armed with machine guns and fights involving a bomb heading towards a futuristic city. All this is placed with a 1950's setting with rock songs of various eras, all averagely covered and shoehorned into the background. The whole thing is overkill with the action sequences feel at odds with this girl that we know nothing about. So everything this girl dreams about doesn't stem from anything based within the character herself or what she sees (take away the items she needs to obtain), but because "fuck it. that's why".

If I have to say something the film's deeper meaning (if there is one, some fans have just liked it as a film where chicks kick ass..) then it appears that Snyder's film wants to have his cake and eat it. The women dress up in sexy garments but if you dare think it's titillating then your in the wrong. Your a fanboy that can't "deal" with the heavy subtexts that the film is bringing. "There’s no close-ups of cleavage, or stuff like that" states Synder. But the crotch shot of Babydoll as she slowly picks up the phallic Katana doesn't count (among other shots). Every man is lecherous within the film, as the film wishes to portray women within it as abused upon, but the film is put together in a way that makes it's point debatable. Sure Synder cuts out all the sexy dancing that leaves us dudes mesmerized, but by the end of the film the final choice made by a certain character troubles us in a way that feels cheap. I've read about the interference by the MPAA but still, there's still a feeling that what could be placed back in could still leave us at odds, mostly because all the "cool stuff" is pushed to the forefront.

It's great to have a interesting subtext. In a world of commerce, it's great to have something that one can mull over as well as enjoy. Snyder's film however is overloaded, misguided, flatly acted and when things aren't exploding (at times even when they are) the film isn't actually that interesting. Films like Fish Tank and Winter's Bone have said much more insightful things about women and their places/relationships within their respective worlds. Mainstream films such as Kill Bill and Whip It are also stronger with their portrayals of strong female protagonists. Snyder's film is slight, pop feminism pushed though video game lens. The intent is good the executon is beyond weak. Think of it when the Spice Girls were yelling girl power.