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.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Review: Source Code
Year: 2011
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffery Wright
Synopsis is here
Roger Ebert's review on Source Code states that the science within the film is preposterous. I don't disagree in the slightest. I dare all the budding Brian Cox's to try and get their head around it. Like Indiana Jones taking more liberties than time team would like to acknowledge, Source Code plays fast and loose with quantum physics with the clear knowledge that most of the audience will not be experts. This provides issues with the film particularly near the end which could leave people scratching their head and not in that musing, good way. However, the key to the film is conviction. There's something about Chris Bacon's lively and Hitchcockain score, Jeffery Wright's amusingly crotchety but forceful scientist and the whole explanation of the situation at hand that makes the unbelievable viable.
Checked the synopsis? Well yes the film does give illusion to Groundhog Day, however it's obvious from the films science and sly voice cameo that Jones is more interested in Quantum Leap than Bill Murray. The film also touches on themes that were nicely established in Jones' first feature Moon. The cyclical nature of the hero's journey and the wish to break from it, that the sacrifice of one benefits the many and the difficult relationship between employers and employees when one has found a way to take advantage of the other. Jones complies these themes well and tells it in a story that feels remarkably fresh. There's enough in the film to entertain throughout.
But we shouldn't give Jones all the credit. The direction of the pace of the material as well as the flow of information is well handled. However, much has to be said about Ben Ripley's screenplay which is constantly involving from many angles. We're not only interested in the idea of Source Code, but also the plight of the solider. How the hell did he get into such a position? Now that he's there; will he ever escape it? There's a love story forming within the film, with the knowledge that we now, how can it survive? The combination of Ripley's questions and Jones' energy put the stakes right into the forefront. Once we get more information on the situation (the twists drop in at just the right moments) there is the question on if it feeling slightly futile. However, the drive of the character and their right to be allowed to do what they wish (sorry if this sounds vague, trying to not lay the plot bare) is what keeps the risk alive and the film entertaining as a whole.
The acting here is solid. Nothing groundbreaking by any accounts but all good turns from likable actors. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan have a cute chemistry and bounce well off each other. Vera Farmiga's performance is a little bland. However, considering the part is merely a holding one, she does what is expected.
Source Code is a film which is full of fridge logic, however, like Limitless and the Adjustment Bureau before it, there's more than enough humanity and conviction in it's execution to enjoy what's on screen. I liked these people, was genuinely surprised with how they dealt with their situation at times and felt thoroughly satisfied (although a tad perplexed) with the outcome. Like a few recent films, the films final codec feels a little tacked on try and keep everyone sweet. However, when it's all said and done; Source Code is a enjoyable, sometimes thoughtful companion piece to Jones' first feature.
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffery Wright
Synopsis is here
Roger Ebert's review on Source Code states that the science within the film is preposterous. I don't disagree in the slightest. I dare all the budding Brian Cox's to try and get their head around it. Like Indiana Jones taking more liberties than time team would like to acknowledge, Source Code plays fast and loose with quantum physics with the clear knowledge that most of the audience will not be experts. This provides issues with the film particularly near the end which could leave people scratching their head and not in that musing, good way. However, the key to the film is conviction. There's something about Chris Bacon's lively and Hitchcockain score, Jeffery Wright's amusingly crotchety but forceful scientist and the whole explanation of the situation at hand that makes the unbelievable viable.
Checked the synopsis? Well yes the film does give illusion to Groundhog Day, however it's obvious from the films science and sly voice cameo that Jones is more interested in Quantum Leap than Bill Murray. The film also touches on themes that were nicely established in Jones' first feature Moon. The cyclical nature of the hero's journey and the wish to break from it, that the sacrifice of one benefits the many and the difficult relationship between employers and employees when one has found a way to take advantage of the other. Jones complies these themes well and tells it in a story that feels remarkably fresh. There's enough in the film to entertain throughout.
But we shouldn't give Jones all the credit. The direction of the pace of the material as well as the flow of information is well handled. However, much has to be said about Ben Ripley's screenplay which is constantly involving from many angles. We're not only interested in the idea of Source Code, but also the plight of the solider. How the hell did he get into such a position? Now that he's there; will he ever escape it? There's a love story forming within the film, with the knowledge that we now, how can it survive? The combination of Ripley's questions and Jones' energy put the stakes right into the forefront. Once we get more information on the situation (the twists drop in at just the right moments) there is the question on if it feeling slightly futile. However, the drive of the character and their right to be allowed to do what they wish (sorry if this sounds vague, trying to not lay the plot bare) is what keeps the risk alive and the film entertaining as a whole.
The acting here is solid. Nothing groundbreaking by any accounts but all good turns from likable actors. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan have a cute chemistry and bounce well off each other. Vera Farmiga's performance is a little bland. However, considering the part is merely a holding one, she does what is expected.
Source Code is a film which is full of fridge logic, however, like Limitless and the Adjustment Bureau before it, there's more than enough humanity and conviction in it's execution to enjoy what's on screen. I liked these people, was genuinely surprised with how they dealt with their situation at times and felt thoroughly satisfied (although a tad perplexed) with the outcome. Like a few recent films, the films final codec feels a little tacked on try and keep everyone sweet. However, when it's all said and done; Source Code is a enjoyable, sometimes thoughtful companion piece to Jones' first feature.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Review: Limitless
Year: 2011
Director: Neil Burger
Screenplay: Leslie Dixon
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abby Cornish, Robert Di Niro
Synopsis is here:
Limitless s about forward momentum and has enough drive to it that I didn't worry about those silly questions that could have tripped a different film up. It it also coming from a focal point of a narrator who spends most of his story on drugs, so when you ask yourself "how did that pill get there?" the film calmly states "you shouldn't be worrying too much about that lets see what happens next". Energy is key to the movie (hell even one of the characters deals in it) and Limitless has more than enough for the ride it's taking you on.
Limitless is a pulpy film which zips along due to two reasons; one you have a charismatic front man in Bradley Cooper who is showing off his range well and two, director Neil Burger and his crew bring a certain amount of visual flair to the film while keeping enough track on the story. Some elements aren't the best (Coopers constant narration of the story is at times unneeded) but the films hustle gets it through. Washed out city streets wrap into to bright colourful places with a swallow of a pill. Visual tics which could easily remind one of Darren Anofsky's Requiem for a Dream are used here, not to overwhelm the film but to enhance the pill popping nature of whole situation.
This is combined with Bradley Cooper, who is on top form here. The slick back hair and the slightly smug smile is heightened by the fact that Cooper walks the walk very well. It's no surprise the film delves into stocks and shares because Cooper's performance is one of a coked up broker. While he may not have that Gecko aggression (we still have to side with him), Coopers performance is best when the pill up's his confidence. It's a swagger that we've seen parts of in The Hangover and The A-Team but it's in full force here and great fun to watch.
An interesting factor for me is that as much of this film is just a mainstream thriller (and one that enjoys the execution of it's conventions) but there appears to be an interesting side note on America and it's taking of drugs as a whole. Not lest the fact that the pills effects make it a natural side-kick for wall street and that the drug and some of it's side-effects had me thinking to myself "Extreme Ritalin?" And yes, drug itself is a fictional beast and also illegal in it's universe, but there's a cynical nature to the films last moments that does enough to tickle the brain somewhat. The film main climax almost betrays this with a climax that's a bit neat. But the film manages to pull itself back somewhat with a nice amount of ambiguity.
Limitless is enjoyable, fast paced ride with a charismatic leading actor and a solid supporting cast to go with him. It may not have the comeback performance that many are expecting from Bobby Di Niro (to be honest he's fine here), but its visuals, solid storytelling and breeziness of it all make it a fun watch.
Director: Neil Burger
Screenplay: Leslie Dixon
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abby Cornish, Robert Di Niro
Synopsis is here:
Limitless s about forward momentum and has enough drive to it that I didn't worry about those silly questions that could have tripped a different film up. It it also coming from a focal point of a narrator who spends most of his story on drugs, so when you ask yourself "how did that pill get there?" the film calmly states "you shouldn't be worrying too much about that lets see what happens next". Energy is key to the movie (hell even one of the characters deals in it) and Limitless has more than enough for the ride it's taking you on.
Limitless is a pulpy film which zips along due to two reasons; one you have a charismatic front man in Bradley Cooper who is showing off his range well and two, director Neil Burger and his crew bring a certain amount of visual flair to the film while keeping enough track on the story. Some elements aren't the best (Coopers constant narration of the story is at times unneeded) but the films hustle gets it through. Washed out city streets wrap into to bright colourful places with a swallow of a pill. Visual tics which could easily remind one of Darren Anofsky's Requiem for a Dream are used here, not to overwhelm the film but to enhance the pill popping nature of whole situation.
This is combined with Bradley Cooper, who is on top form here. The slick back hair and the slightly smug smile is heightened by the fact that Cooper walks the walk very well. It's no surprise the film delves into stocks and shares because Cooper's performance is one of a coked up broker. While he may not have that Gecko aggression (we still have to side with him), Coopers performance is best when the pill up's his confidence. It's a swagger that we've seen parts of in The Hangover and The A-Team but it's in full force here and great fun to watch.
An interesting factor for me is that as much of this film is just a mainstream thriller (and one that enjoys the execution of it's conventions) but there appears to be an interesting side note on America and it's taking of drugs as a whole. Not lest the fact that the pills effects make it a natural side-kick for wall street and that the drug and some of it's side-effects had me thinking to myself "Extreme Ritalin?" And yes, drug itself is a fictional beast and also illegal in it's universe, but there's a cynical nature to the films last moments that does enough to tickle the brain somewhat. The film main climax almost betrays this with a climax that's a bit neat. But the film manages to pull itself back somewhat with a nice amount of ambiguity.
Limitless is enjoyable, fast paced ride with a charismatic leading actor and a solid supporting cast to go with him. It may not have the comeback performance that many are expecting from Bobby Di Niro (to be honest he's fine here), but its visuals, solid storytelling and breeziness of it all make it a fun watch.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Review: Submarine
Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Richard Ayoade
Screenplay: Richard Ayoade
Starring: Craig Roberts, Sally Hawkins, Paddy Considine, Noah Taylor
Synopsis is here:
The best way to describe Richard Ayoade's (Moss of I.T crowd) feature directional debut is with one word: Awkward. This a both a good and bad thing to the film as a whole because while much of the film is meant to bring a certain amount of discomfort in tone (much of the amusement comes from its thorniness), certain aspects stick out like a sore thumb. Other moments are just plain hard to like. I wasn't surprised that the film had two walkouts in the cinema I watched it in. I stuck with the film because A: I don't do walkouts, B: My girlfriend was with me, but mostly importantly C: in that there is something amusing about the films quirks and a certain amount of emotion which gets wrought out of the situation put in place. However, I really had to work at it to get invested.
I found my slight detachment odd being a fan of Rushmore; the film that Submarine is being routinely compared to. Like Andersons feature and more recently Scott Pilgrim vs The World, the film is a coming of age feature dealing with lead characters that are not easy to warm to. The issue I have is while these protagonists are all very similar (misguided, self-absorbed to the point of delusion) Submarine has darker themes roaming it's corridors. This is by no way a bad thing, but it does mean that the stakes are higher, so while Scott Pilgrim and Max Fischer have a dopey charm about them that helped me connect, Submarine's Oliver doesn't have such an easy entry point. To some this may be the film's saving grace as the film eschews a lot of the surface gloss that litters some other films of it's ilk. However when the film gets to the final third I found it hard to truly engage with the lead. Perhaps I felt that Oliver is maybe too selfish with all things considered.
All this aside; Ayoade has a strong vision in mind and while the illusions of Wes Anderson and French New Wave influences are clearly present, the film is all Ayoade's. The film's mixture of setting and retro mise en scene (sorry for using the dreaded word) give the film a timeless feel, while it's muted colours and combination of ugly industrial estates and gorgeous beach landscapes match our protagonists perfectly. Ayoade also has a certain flair for set pieces with a highlight being a well crafted two weeks of romance scene that's full of youthful nostalgia and a sweetness that is lacking within recent Brit flick affair.
The film is also well casted. Craig Roberts downcast expression and quick spoken ramblings capture the gawky inelegance that comes from being the uncool school drifter.Yasmine Paige is well matched foil for this as the unsentimental and bad tempered love interest, Jordana. Without some of the more common indicators, their romance has very natural feel to it. Sally Hawkins (Jill) and Noah Taylor (Lloyd) are almost unrecognizable as Oliver's parents, while Paddy Considine once again reminds us that he has comic chops to match his more dramatic intensity, channeling Jemaine Clements Chevalier with a very amusing star gazing ex-lover of Jills.
Leaving the cinema afterward almost left me at a loss. Submarine is witty, stylish and on the right side of nostalgia. However, this isn't meant to be as observational as something like Archipelago and there are moments that kept me at an arms length. Sometimes it's down to the character, other times it's just elements that just don't feel right such as the chapter titles, its odd pacing, and an end that feels too neat. But despite this the film has left me aching to rewatch it as I have a feeling the slight imperfections may be the reason the film is so appealing.
Note: I was not prepared for Alex Turners score, which I really enjoyed.
Director: Richard Ayoade
Screenplay: Richard Ayoade
Starring: Craig Roberts, Sally Hawkins, Paddy Considine, Noah Taylor
Synopsis is here:
The best way to describe Richard Ayoade's (Moss of I.T crowd) feature directional debut is with one word: Awkward. This a both a good and bad thing to the film as a whole because while much of the film is meant to bring a certain amount of discomfort in tone (much of the amusement comes from its thorniness), certain aspects stick out like a sore thumb. Other moments are just plain hard to like. I wasn't surprised that the film had two walkouts in the cinema I watched it in. I stuck with the film because A: I don't do walkouts, B: My girlfriend was with me, but mostly importantly C: in that there is something amusing about the films quirks and a certain amount of emotion which gets wrought out of the situation put in place. However, I really had to work at it to get invested.
I found my slight detachment odd being a fan of Rushmore; the film that Submarine is being routinely compared to. Like Andersons feature and more recently Scott Pilgrim vs The World, the film is a coming of age feature dealing with lead characters that are not easy to warm to. The issue I have is while these protagonists are all very similar (misguided, self-absorbed to the point of delusion) Submarine has darker themes roaming it's corridors. This is by no way a bad thing, but it does mean that the stakes are higher, so while Scott Pilgrim and Max Fischer have a dopey charm about them that helped me connect, Submarine's Oliver doesn't have such an easy entry point. To some this may be the film's saving grace as the film eschews a lot of the surface gloss that litters some other films of it's ilk. However when the film gets to the final third I found it hard to truly engage with the lead. Perhaps I felt that Oliver is maybe too selfish with all things considered.
All this aside; Ayoade has a strong vision in mind and while the illusions of Wes Anderson and French New Wave influences are clearly present, the film is all Ayoade's. The film's mixture of setting and retro mise en scene (sorry for using the dreaded word) give the film a timeless feel, while it's muted colours and combination of ugly industrial estates and gorgeous beach landscapes match our protagonists perfectly. Ayoade also has a certain flair for set pieces with a highlight being a well crafted two weeks of romance scene that's full of youthful nostalgia and a sweetness that is lacking within recent Brit flick affair.
The film is also well casted. Craig Roberts downcast expression and quick spoken ramblings capture the gawky inelegance that comes from being the uncool school drifter.Yasmine Paige is well matched foil for this as the unsentimental and bad tempered love interest, Jordana. Without some of the more common indicators, their romance has very natural feel to it. Sally Hawkins (Jill) and Noah Taylor (Lloyd) are almost unrecognizable as Oliver's parents, while Paddy Considine once again reminds us that he has comic chops to match his more dramatic intensity, channeling Jemaine Clements Chevalier with a very amusing star gazing ex-lover of Jills.
Leaving the cinema afterward almost left me at a loss. Submarine is witty, stylish and on the right side of nostalgia. However, this isn't meant to be as observational as something like Archipelago and there are moments that kept me at an arms length. Sometimes it's down to the character, other times it's just elements that just don't feel right such as the chapter titles, its odd pacing, and an end that feels too neat. But despite this the film has left me aching to rewatch it as I have a feeling the slight imperfections may be the reason the film is so appealing.
Note: I was not prepared for Alex Turners score, which I really enjoyed.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Review: Archipelago
Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Joanna Hogg
Screenplay: Joanna Hogg
Starring: Christopher Baker, Kate Fahy, Tom Hiddleston
Synopsis is here
I can honestly say this without a doubt...I don't know anyone I could recommend this movie to. I find this a bit of a shame because I would love to pick their brain. In fact saying that I enjoyed Archipelago almost has a shade of sadomasochist to it. The film itself is about a middle class family who have clearly spent years doing their best to pick each other apart. This is perhaps nothing new to some who were fans of films like American Beauty, The Ice Storm, Festen et all. However, such films have a certain element of warmth or connectivity to them. Archipelago has a chilliness as glacial as it's pace. For me its cold shoulder and British stiff upper lip is what makes the film so interesting.
Comparisons to Hanke and Bergman have been made and are very apt but gone is the dehumanization and existential crisis and is replaced with a repressed insecurity that only the British middle class could bring to proceedings. Hoggs film works best when it highlights those slight, recognizable intricacies that some families would love to hide.
Told in static, unwavering shots (combined with some beautiful blocking/framing of characters) Joanne Hogg sets and maintains the films focus and tone with remarkable precision. We learn much about these characters through their placement and coupling alone. Such aspects are important as despite it's naturalistic and often economic dialogue, most of the films kick comes from their restraint and body language. An example of this is Edward (Huddlestone) whose gawky stance and positioning constantly betray his feelings towards his other family members. It's also worth noting that one of the films domineering characters is an unseen, absent father who is given an eerie omnipresence by the family's one sided phone calls with him. The reason I bring this up is due to Edwards presence (or lack there of) when the calls are made. When the revelation that the family are on holiday for one last get together with Edward before he goes to Africa for 11 months, the lack of communication speak volumes.
Conversation with the film are often polite pleasantries, masking a bitterness and anxiety that's clearly been felt for years. Hogg manages to seize upon this aspect time and time again throughout. The films main highlight involving Edwards sister Cynthia (a wonderfully scrabulous Lydia Leonard), a restaurant and some cooked guinea fowl is not only a well observed moment of humor, but also a deftly timed release of restrained emotion that truly feels like it's been back up since the helicopter landed on the island. You get the feeling that the missing father micromanages every relationship within the family.
Archipelago is carefully handled affair with Joanna Hogg who makes use her own directional discipline to take hold of a family who has lost their own. It is a film without a "regular" narrative structure but this is a film that doesn't need one. Keeping us at an arms distance at all times, we can merely watch in cringe-worthy detail a brief moment in this family's life. We will never know what's made them this way, only speculate. You don't get the relief of a usual cliched ending you can only hope that things can get better. The film by no way perfect; it's pace is beyond slow, there characters are be no means likable and it suffers from a very irritating artist character whose pretensions are almost as insufferable as my own. But Hogg's ability to open a door to these people, stir such fascination about them before shutting us off with nothing but our own thoughts to ponder, allows Archipelago to be one of the most stimulating films I've taken in this years first quarter. I don't know anyone I can recommend this to, but those who have the patience may absorb much from viewing it.
Director: Joanna Hogg
Screenplay: Joanna Hogg
Starring: Christopher Baker, Kate Fahy, Tom Hiddleston
Synopsis is here
I can honestly say this without a doubt...I don't know anyone I could recommend this movie to. I find this a bit of a shame because I would love to pick their brain. In fact saying that I enjoyed Archipelago almost has a shade of sadomasochist to it. The film itself is about a middle class family who have clearly spent years doing their best to pick each other apart. This is perhaps nothing new to some who were fans of films like American Beauty, The Ice Storm, Festen et all. However, such films have a certain element of warmth or connectivity to them. Archipelago has a chilliness as glacial as it's pace. For me its cold shoulder and British stiff upper lip is what makes the film so interesting.
Comparisons to Hanke and Bergman have been made and are very apt but gone is the dehumanization and existential crisis and is replaced with a repressed insecurity that only the British middle class could bring to proceedings. Hoggs film works best when it highlights those slight, recognizable intricacies that some families would love to hide.
Told in static, unwavering shots (combined with some beautiful blocking/framing of characters) Joanne Hogg sets and maintains the films focus and tone with remarkable precision. We learn much about these characters through their placement and coupling alone. Such aspects are important as despite it's naturalistic and often economic dialogue, most of the films kick comes from their restraint and body language. An example of this is Edward (Huddlestone) whose gawky stance and positioning constantly betray his feelings towards his other family members. It's also worth noting that one of the films domineering characters is an unseen, absent father who is given an eerie omnipresence by the family's one sided phone calls with him. The reason I bring this up is due to Edwards presence (or lack there of) when the calls are made. When the revelation that the family are on holiday for one last get together with Edward before he goes to Africa for 11 months, the lack of communication speak volumes.
Conversation with the film are often polite pleasantries, masking a bitterness and anxiety that's clearly been felt for years. Hogg manages to seize upon this aspect time and time again throughout. The films main highlight involving Edwards sister Cynthia (a wonderfully scrabulous Lydia Leonard), a restaurant and some cooked guinea fowl is not only a well observed moment of humor, but also a deftly timed release of restrained emotion that truly feels like it's been back up since the helicopter landed on the island. You get the feeling that the missing father micromanages every relationship within the family.
Archipelago is carefully handled affair with Joanna Hogg who makes use her own directional discipline to take hold of a family who has lost their own. It is a film without a "regular" narrative structure but this is a film that doesn't need one. Keeping us at an arms distance at all times, we can merely watch in cringe-worthy detail a brief moment in this family's life. We will never know what's made them this way, only speculate. You don't get the relief of a usual cliched ending you can only hope that things can get better. The film by no way perfect; it's pace is beyond slow, there characters are be no means likable and it suffers from a very irritating artist character whose pretensions are almost as insufferable as my own. But Hogg's ability to open a door to these people, stir such fascination about them before shutting us off with nothing but our own thoughts to ponder, allows Archipelago to be one of the most stimulating films I've taken in this years first quarter. I don't know anyone I can recommend this to, but those who have the patience may absorb much from viewing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)