Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Peter Mullen
Screenplay: Peter Mullen
Starring: Conor McCarron, Peter Mullen
Synopsis is here
If Richard Ayoade's Submarine is getting plaudits for being a coming of age flick with an arthouse/indie twist that the Brits usually avoid/not bother with. NEDS should be applauded for being the type of coming of age film that the Brits know and love; gritty, personal, visceral and provocative. Praise should also go to Mullen for delivering a film which is also punctuated with darkly humorous asides (fight sequences played out to glam rock classics) and evocative symbolism; with the films last shots alone being compelling, troubling and truthful while maintaining it's bizarre tone.
NEDS ponders the question that was asked so directly in The Wild One (1953) "what are you rebelling against? The film's lead John McGill (Conor McCarron) has an answer, it slowly becomes clear that he wants to claim identity on his own terms. Unfortunately, he is locked down by a society that seems that its has already decided upon how it wants to see him. An intelligent boy with one eye on the future, John is lamentably trapped within an area where physical violence and threats from other kids are the normal, other parents who look at his working class background with scorn, a brother with a gang reputation that proceeds him and an alcoholic father who lack of presence as a dad an aggression towards his wife is as negative as a father who is absent. There's so much pushing against the young man that it's no surprise; like a shook up bottle of coke, he is pressurised to go off when opened.
Mullen layers a quiet intensity throughout the movie, which is best seen in the sequences involving John and his Father (an always great Mullen). We do not see much of this character through the run time, but the presence and gravitas Mullen gives him creates a perfect storm-like atmosphere. We don't only get a full establishment of the family life quickly, but we also sense the how long the turmoil has lasted.
Mullen's performance is the type of display one would expect of a man of his talents, however it's brilliant to see him going up against a young contender like McCarron. In a debut role, McCarron almost effortlessly balances swagger, intelligence, fear and ferocity as if he was a veteran. Much like Thomas Turgoose in This is England (2006), this is a performance that doesn't hold any of the pretension an well verse child actor could have and is loose enough to allow the character of John to breathe as a fully formed, flawed lost soul.
NEDS isn't a film with visual bombastics and Mullen's look of the film is an efficient one, the captures the grim grey look of a 70's Scotland. It would be interesting to watch this next to Ratcatcher (1999) and compare the more romantic visuals of Lynne Ramsey to Mullen's more matter of fact affair. It's also interesting that both films show such a troubled Scotland and are careful not to search for easy answers within their stories. I must admit at one point I was worried that NEDS could boil over to either false hope or over exaggerated nihilism. However, like it's lead character the film carefully balances over a knife edge to it's powerful and yet still ambiguous climax.
British features have been hoping into genre flights of fancy recently and for that I've been grateful. However, it's always worth while to see British film get down and dirty in that underbelly that we do so well.
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Year: 2011
Director: Michael Bay
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey
Synopsis is here:
Excuses aside as Bay has roared back with the third and final (maybe) feature of this vapid and overlong saga of films. What's changed and what can we expect? The short answer is very little. If you've had a problem with these films before then there is NO change here. We have robots and they fight each other while human actors mug and feign the ability to portray real emotion for the material. The 3D cameras may have stopped some of the schizophrenic editing that Bay likes to employ but besides that what you see is once again what you get; empty, over-long spectacle. For the third time we have a transformers film which runs far too long on the dumb plot it is given. Those who think other wise will take to comments pages and bemoan that bloggers and writers are taking it too seriously and it's just about the carnage that develops. I call shenanigans.
Why? Because if such was the case you would throw out the plot wouldn't you? Not have anything there except the robots fighting right? What you'd get is a 50 minute film of just special effects banging against each other. If the only reason to watch is the films last stretch (a 40+ minute Robo smackdown) then why pay (in both earthly currency and soul dollars) for all that alleged plot, supposed acting and poor attempts of emotional engagement?
To be fair, the film starts out interestingly enough. Following suit from X-men: First Class, TF:DOTM starts off by mixing fiction with reality. Melding the space race (and an awful Buzz Aldrin cameo) with the Transformers mythos. The film series has struggled with this idea for three films, but the use of effects and the points of history used (1972 when the space race ended and Chernobyl) actually help try and give a certain amount of grounding to proceedings. As plot points within the whole film it's not much, but it almost gives us a foundation to stand on.
This rug however, is yanked away pretty quick as Bay wants to re-introduce us to what made many of the critics (and myself) dislike these flicks so much. We once again get dubious homophobia (See TF2 and Bad Boys 2, annoying stereotypes (didn't like the black/red-neck robots? check out our ridiculous British ones who are considered "assholes" in the movie), unbearably juvenile "comic" relief (also those parents are back) and a story that doesn't really add up even on basic aspects. If Transformers and everything about them run on energon, I get annoyed when at one point army men can check energon levels without hesitation, only to have that moment ignored later on. Such aspects can be small and nitpicky...but can also take you out of a movie.
As can annoying lead characters such as our dear friend Sam Witwicky who is one of the most grating lead characters of the year. In a film like this when it's all about the explosions LaBeouf's Sam has little to do. However when the spotlight is on this character we have two modes; in the beginning we get obnoxious arrogant ass mode in which Sam does his best to make sure that we as an audience dislike him intently. The second half of the film we get shouty Sam in which LaBeouf (who usually has a nice screen presence) yelps, mugs and generally pulls faces like Kermit the frog. Although at least Shia is an actor, because as much his performance isn't great here, he is Olivier in comparison to Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Whiteley, picked for her bum and boobs, not only provides zero chemistry with her co-star but also has problem spouting much of the dialogue convincingly. This may have been less of an issue for someone who is an actress, but consider the fact that this is her first film, with a director notorious for focus on the pyrotechnics. That is no way for a model to be introduced to a major Hollywood film.
This aside at least the payday is good for a list of actors that looks like the Coen brothers phone book. Frances McDormand, John Malkovich and John Turturro turn up to pad the thinning material out. Patrick Dempsey must owe Kruger a bunch of favours for being in both this and Scream 3 while Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong to be on the butt of the unfunny gay jokes. Jeong who plays Wang (hur hur geddit?) also gets a departure that is so insensitive for the sake of a few jokes I was slightly aghast.
This leaves us to the 40+ minute reason why many have shelled out cash for this two and a half hour movie. Bay excels here with set pieces the remind us that when it comes to action, he always delivers something worth watching (once). His visuals still suffer from his hyperactive camera movement, but they have however been colour graded up from garish to bright. The Robots gleam, shine and rust and fight in the way you'd expect an effect worth millions should to. I will admit that the moment when Shockwave began to crash through a skyscaper I was impressed to a point.
But this comes at an expense of once far too many, almost non-descript robot characters with no real personalties. Too many human characters who aren't very interesting/likeable who chat about nothing for a long time, needless crotch shots, lingering arse shots alongside unintentionally amusing lines and sequences due to a bad script. We are constantly told to switch our brains off to films like this, but I keep asking myself at what point did it become the norm that we must be brain dead in order to enjoy a film? Why is it that the hallmarks of such a genre; may have been b-movies in disguise, but still maintained structure, characterisation as well as decent action? This film is 157 minutes long and yet we constantly get told to ignore two thirds of this because some things blow up for just over one third.
Transformers: Dark of the moon almost shows that Megan Fox may have been fired but she may also be right about Bay, a director with many films that seem to only exist in one note stereotypes, bland humour and chaos. We see close-ups of character's faces but they seem devoid of any emotional connection. Conversations feel clumsy and nobody resembles a human. Some ignore this based on a bizarre ideal that you should pay full price for nearly half a movie, especially if it's in 3D IMAX. I know many who are happy with the trade off. I say more power to them. This way of thinking has Dark of the Moon most probably becoming the 7th film to break the billion mark in worldwide grosses. Who needs friends when you've got fans.
Director: Michael Bay
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey
Synopsis is here:
"God, I really wish I could go loose on this one. He's like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward. He has no social skills at all. And it's endearing to watch him. He's vulnerable and fragile in real life and then on set he's a tyrant. Shia and I almost die when we make a Transformers movie. He has you do some really insane things that insurance would never let you do". - The Infamous Megan Fox Quote for GQ.It's incredible how much insight that quote can give on not only Fox (I believe she was out of line) but Michael Bay and the Transformers franchise (most important word). It's been murmured before that action takes place over everything on a Michael Bay set and that includes of course acting and story. It's also interesting that Bay himself claimed that his 2009 juggernaut Transformers: Revenge of the fallen had missed the mark. I find that particularly revealing because two years ago it was the marketing of that film that Bay had issues with. Now, on the event of the third instalment of the very VERY marketable series (good ol nostalgia and kids); it was of course the writers strike that caused such a weak film.
Excuses aside as Bay has roared back with the third and final (maybe) feature of this vapid and overlong saga of films. What's changed and what can we expect? The short answer is very little. If you've had a problem with these films before then there is NO change here. We have robots and they fight each other while human actors mug and feign the ability to portray real emotion for the material. The 3D cameras may have stopped some of the schizophrenic editing that Bay likes to employ but besides that what you see is once again what you get; empty, over-long spectacle. For the third time we have a transformers film which runs far too long on the dumb plot it is given. Those who think other wise will take to comments pages and bemoan that bloggers and writers are taking it too seriously and it's just about the carnage that develops. I call shenanigans.
Why? Because if such was the case you would throw out the plot wouldn't you? Not have anything there except the robots fighting right? What you'd get is a 50 minute film of just special effects banging against each other. If the only reason to watch is the films last stretch (a 40+ minute Robo smackdown) then why pay (in both earthly currency and soul dollars) for all that alleged plot, supposed acting and poor attempts of emotional engagement?
To be fair, the film starts out interestingly enough. Following suit from X-men: First Class, TF:DOTM starts off by mixing fiction with reality. Melding the space race (and an awful Buzz Aldrin cameo) with the Transformers mythos. The film series has struggled with this idea for three films, but the use of effects and the points of history used (1972 when the space race ended and Chernobyl) actually help try and give a certain amount of grounding to proceedings. As plot points within the whole film it's not much, but it almost gives us a foundation to stand on.
This rug however, is yanked away pretty quick as Bay wants to re-introduce us to what made many of the critics (and myself) dislike these flicks so much. We once again get dubious homophobia (See TF2 and Bad Boys 2, annoying stereotypes (didn't like the black/red-neck robots? check out our ridiculous British ones who are considered "assholes" in the movie), unbearably juvenile "comic" relief (also those parents are back) and a story that doesn't really add up even on basic aspects. If Transformers and everything about them run on energon, I get annoyed when at one point army men can check energon levels without hesitation, only to have that moment ignored later on. Such aspects can be small and nitpicky...but can also take you out of a movie.
As can annoying lead characters such as our dear friend Sam Witwicky who is one of the most grating lead characters of the year. In a film like this when it's all about the explosions LaBeouf's Sam has little to do. However when the spotlight is on this character we have two modes; in the beginning we get obnoxious arrogant ass mode in which Sam does his best to make sure that we as an audience dislike him intently. The second half of the film we get shouty Sam in which LaBeouf (who usually has a nice screen presence) yelps, mugs and generally pulls faces like Kermit the frog. Although at least Shia is an actor, because as much his performance isn't great here, he is Olivier in comparison to Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Whiteley, picked for her bum and boobs, not only provides zero chemistry with her co-star but also has problem spouting much of the dialogue convincingly. This may have been less of an issue for someone who is an actress, but consider the fact that this is her first film, with a director notorious for focus on the pyrotechnics. That is no way for a model to be introduced to a major Hollywood film.
This aside at least the payday is good for a list of actors that looks like the Coen brothers phone book. Frances McDormand, John Malkovich and John Turturro turn up to pad the thinning material out. Patrick Dempsey must owe Kruger a bunch of favours for being in both this and Scream 3 while Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong to be on the butt of the unfunny gay jokes. Jeong who plays Wang (hur hur geddit?) also gets a departure that is so insensitive for the sake of a few jokes I was slightly aghast.
This leaves us to the 40+ minute reason why many have shelled out cash for this two and a half hour movie. Bay excels here with set pieces the remind us that when it comes to action, he always delivers something worth watching (once). His visuals still suffer from his hyperactive camera movement, but they have however been colour graded up from garish to bright. The Robots gleam, shine and rust and fight in the way you'd expect an effect worth millions should to. I will admit that the moment when Shockwave began to crash through a skyscaper I was impressed to a point.
But this comes at an expense of once far too many, almost non-descript robot characters with no real personalties. Too many human characters who aren't very interesting/likeable who chat about nothing for a long time, needless crotch shots, lingering arse shots alongside unintentionally amusing lines and sequences due to a bad script. We are constantly told to switch our brains off to films like this, but I keep asking myself at what point did it become the norm that we must be brain dead in order to enjoy a film? Why is it that the hallmarks of such a genre; may have been b-movies in disguise, but still maintained structure, characterisation as well as decent action? This film is 157 minutes long and yet we constantly get told to ignore two thirds of this because some things blow up for just over one third.
Transformers: Dark of the moon almost shows that Megan Fox may have been fired but she may also be right about Bay, a director with many films that seem to only exist in one note stereotypes, bland humour and chaos. We see close-ups of character's faces but they seem devoid of any emotional connection. Conversations feel clumsy and nobody resembles a human. Some ignore this based on a bizarre ideal that you should pay full price for nearly half a movie, especially if it's in 3D IMAX. I know many who are happy with the trade off. I say more power to them. This way of thinking has Dark of the Moon most probably becoming the 7th film to break the billion mark in worldwide grosses. Who needs friends when you've got fans.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Review: Bridesmaids
Year: 2011
Director: Paul Feig
Screenplay: Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Chris O Dowd, Rose Byrne, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy
Synopsis is here
Bridesmaids is like most Apatow graced features; there's a lot of swearing, some low brow humour and a lot of heart. The only difference appears to be that instead of the typical man-child leads usually given, we instead follow an oddjob group of girls (led by Kristen Wiig) as they stumble over obstacles and clash their particular personalties before a friends wedding.
The gender switch had many column ichers hyping and writing as there is a strong belief to some that not only the mainstream American comedy is struggling, but that the female gender, may or may not be particularly funny in the first place.
The latter half of the argument, I find similar to the race argument that pops it's head up from time to time. The media world is dominated by in real life by a certain cultural group and mindset, so of course the art and entertainment reflects said group the most. It has it's disadvantages and outrages as you expect, but for the most part it's understandable. The problem is for me (and I believe many others) is when the dominance becomes a full on stranglehold on whatever minority. So when something like Bridesmaids slips out, makes money and is generally liked there is a certain amount of shock.
I was a little shocked myself as while Bridesmaids has some laugh out loud funny moments (two brilliantly put together set pieces on a plane and wedding dress store) as well as some smaller titter worthy scenes, I was adequately amused no more, no less. My issues have nothing to do with the gender of the cast (although a refreshing change), I just felt that as a film, it could have been a little tighter, some of the characters could have been a little more prominent and not all the jokes worked on me as much as I had hoped.
With this said, in my opinion Bridesmaids is far superior to the Hangover 2; particularly in cast, with breakout star Melissa McCarthy being a much better trade off compared to Zack Galifiankis as her character actually has something to do (it seems lot of of Galifiankis' appeal is that he has a beard and slightly off-kilter appearance). Rose Byrne shows she has more than enough chops to hang out with a comic clan, and while largely ignored, the pairing of Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey share some nice banter with each other. The film is a grand display for one Kristen Wiig. Now finally given a stage to show more prominence, Wiig shows off a great balance of slapstick, timing and pathos. Wiig manages to give the role of Annie the neurotic tendencies you'd expect from a Bridget Jones style character, but none of the irritation.
There is enough within Bridesmaids to show that American comedy is doing fine in the right films. Gender arguments aside, there's also a great amount of sweetness to be found in the characters that helps elevate humour, which is what some comedies have been missing. It didn't stop the feeling I got that Bridemaids loses some laughs in the latter half and that the film could have been raunchier and less meandering at points. But as a whole Bridesmaids was certainly worth the ticket price.
Director: Paul Feig
Screenplay: Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Chris O Dowd, Rose Byrne, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy
Synopsis is here
Bridesmaids is like most Apatow graced features; there's a lot of swearing, some low brow humour and a lot of heart. The only difference appears to be that instead of the typical man-child leads usually given, we instead follow an oddjob group of girls (led by Kristen Wiig) as they stumble over obstacles and clash their particular personalties before a friends wedding.
The gender switch had many column ichers hyping and writing as there is a strong belief to some that not only the mainstream American comedy is struggling, but that the female gender, may or may not be particularly funny in the first place.
The latter half of the argument, I find similar to the race argument that pops it's head up from time to time. The media world is dominated by in real life by a certain cultural group and mindset, so of course the art and entertainment reflects said group the most. It has it's disadvantages and outrages as you expect, but for the most part it's understandable. The problem is for me (and I believe many others) is when the dominance becomes a full on stranglehold on whatever minority. So when something like Bridesmaids slips out, makes money and is generally liked there is a certain amount of shock.
I was a little shocked myself as while Bridesmaids has some laugh out loud funny moments (two brilliantly put together set pieces on a plane and wedding dress store) as well as some smaller titter worthy scenes, I was adequately amused no more, no less. My issues have nothing to do with the gender of the cast (although a refreshing change), I just felt that as a film, it could have been a little tighter, some of the characters could have been a little more prominent and not all the jokes worked on me as much as I had hoped.
With this said, in my opinion Bridesmaids is far superior to the Hangover 2; particularly in cast, with breakout star Melissa McCarthy being a much better trade off compared to Zack Galifiankis as her character actually has something to do (it seems lot of of Galifiankis' appeal is that he has a beard and slightly off-kilter appearance). Rose Byrne shows she has more than enough chops to hang out with a comic clan, and while largely ignored, the pairing of Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey share some nice banter with each other. The film is a grand display for one Kristen Wiig. Now finally given a stage to show more prominence, Wiig shows off a great balance of slapstick, timing and pathos. Wiig manages to give the role of Annie the neurotic tendencies you'd expect from a Bridget Jones style character, but none of the irritation.
There is enough within Bridesmaids to show that American comedy is doing fine in the right films. Gender arguments aside, there's also a great amount of sweetness to be found in the characters that helps elevate humour, which is what some comedies have been missing. It didn't stop the feeling I got that Bridemaids loses some laughs in the latter half and that the film could have been raunchier and less meandering at points. But as a whole Bridesmaids was certainly worth the ticket price.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Review: Green Lantern
Year: 2011
Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim, Michael Goldenberg
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard , Blake Lively
Synopsis is here
A common phase for a film like The Green Lantern would be Cookie Cutter. While I agree with the metaphor to a certain degree, there is a slight problem with it. Cookie Cutter may represent samey, but it also displays that there's a certain degree of taste to proceedings. I like cookies. They are dependable snack food. When a film is described as cookie cutter, it may not be fresh or original but it should provide some sort of sweetness. Green Lantern is more like play-doh cutters in which the end product may be non-toxic but still inedible.
I personally think the film is as earnest as Ryan Reynolds dimples. It wants to be a decent and fun popcorn flick and some of the more harsh reviews have made the film out to be some sort of super cancer. I think Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Goldeneye) tries to do a decent job with the action set pieces and I think the much of the cast is trying hard to give a silly story (seriously the opening narrative is laugh out loud) a certain amount of gravitas. The effects have been blasted as bad but I didn't mind them too much as I've seen much worse. All in all there's is enough within the film to make it a watchable feature.
Unfortunately for me, Green Lantern's fatal flaw is it's hash of a screenplay; which does nothing to explore the themes it brings up properly, nor does it construct the relationships within the movie with any grounding. Every aspect of the story is half-baked, pedestrian and predictable. Far too many character turn up spout wearisome dialogue and disappear never to be heard from again. Around half way through the plot suddenly realises that the characters within the film are actually connected to each in some way but unfortunately this appears way too late.
In fact, it's this aspect is so badly put together that one may question the who's and why's long after the film's finished., though more out of frustration more than anything. It is a script that turns Blake Lively from a character with any creditability into a woman in distress avatar. It is a screenplay that states there is a back story between three characters but decides to tell us this almost near the end of the film. It's a screenplay that states that Hal Jordan has a fractured family life of sorts, but cannot be bothered to do anything with such characters so gives them a typical lazy one note scene. Such soulless construction ruins a film which clearly just wants to have a good time.
The worst thing about Green Lantern is that you can see that fun film trying to come out. Those who aren't pompous film viewers like myself will happily ignore the problems and garner something from the film. But I almost got there. I like the goofiness that an actor like Reynolds can bring, I like that Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard bring the right amount of energy to the role. I also like Blake Lively's....erm...figure (seriously they give her nothing to work with). There's also the over used but still interesting theme of fear being an all consuming force, while will power can overcome such an aspect. The action lacks physicality (thanks overuse of effects) but still has a popcorn munching appeal. It's just a damn shame that the four writers on board of this movie couldn't find the tone or coherence for the piece.
Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim, Michael Goldenberg
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard , Blake Lively
Synopsis is here
A common phase for a film like The Green Lantern would be Cookie Cutter. While I agree with the metaphor to a certain degree, there is a slight problem with it. Cookie Cutter may represent samey, but it also displays that there's a certain degree of taste to proceedings. I like cookies. They are dependable snack food. When a film is described as cookie cutter, it may not be fresh or original but it should provide some sort of sweetness. Green Lantern is more like play-doh cutters in which the end product may be non-toxic but still inedible.
I personally think the film is as earnest as Ryan Reynolds dimples. It wants to be a decent and fun popcorn flick and some of the more harsh reviews have made the film out to be some sort of super cancer. I think Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Goldeneye) tries to do a decent job with the action set pieces and I think the much of the cast is trying hard to give a silly story (seriously the opening narrative is laugh out loud) a certain amount of gravitas. The effects have been blasted as bad but I didn't mind them too much as I've seen much worse. All in all there's is enough within the film to make it a watchable feature.
Unfortunately for me, Green Lantern's fatal flaw is it's hash of a screenplay; which does nothing to explore the themes it brings up properly, nor does it construct the relationships within the movie with any grounding. Every aspect of the story is half-baked, pedestrian and predictable. Far too many character turn up spout wearisome dialogue and disappear never to be heard from again. Around half way through the plot suddenly realises that the characters within the film are actually connected to each in some way but unfortunately this appears way too late.
In fact, it's this aspect is so badly put together that one may question the who's and why's long after the film's finished., though more out of frustration more than anything. It is a script that turns Blake Lively from a character with any creditability into a woman in distress avatar. It is a screenplay that states there is a back story between three characters but decides to tell us this almost near the end of the film. It's a screenplay that states that Hal Jordan has a fractured family life of sorts, but cannot be bothered to do anything with such characters so gives them a typical lazy one note scene. Such soulless construction ruins a film which clearly just wants to have a good time.
The worst thing about Green Lantern is that you can see that fun film trying to come out. Those who aren't pompous film viewers like myself will happily ignore the problems and garner something from the film. But I almost got there. I like the goofiness that an actor like Reynolds can bring, I like that Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard bring the right amount of energy to the role. I also like Blake Lively's....erm...figure (seriously they give her nothing to work with). There's also the over used but still interesting theme of fear being an all consuming force, while will power can overcome such an aspect. The action lacks physicality (thanks overuse of effects) but still has a popcorn munching appeal. It's just a damn shame that the four writers on board of this movie couldn't find the tone or coherence for the piece.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Review: Senna
Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Asif Kapadia
Written By: Manish Pandey
Synopsis: A documentary that deals with the life and tragic early death of Ayrton Senna
I've never had any real interest in Formula 1 racing. In the same way people moan about football being overpaid men on a field kicking leather around, F1 to me is rich people in very fast cars driving around a track. I guess my disinterest in the sport stems from a disinterest in cars. I have my drivers licence, even owned a car at one point, but the way people react and interact when in these massive hunks of metal has always been a turn off. Also as a man who reads the back pages first, I've always seen how the politics have affected the sport, but then again name me a popular sport these days that hasn't been infected by money men and the like.
Senna is the perfect film for people who don't have an interest in the sport. Why? Because the subject himself; Ayrton Senna, appears so wonderfully grounded. It also helps that director Asif Kapadia and editors Chris King and Gregers Sall compile a film, not as a typical assembly of talking heads but as a full bodied drama, playing out in front of you with all the tension of many high class Hollywood features. Senna creates a such a riveting portrayal of a man and the sport he loves, that I became more intrigued not only in the man but the sport itself. This is what a good documentary should do.
Taking the most prominent aspect of Senna's life; his privileged yet determined upbringing, his battles against Allan Prost and the FIA, to his tragic final moments. It's put together with laser sighted precision (out of 15,000 hours of footage) and provides poignant insight into a man whose fearlessness (observe his driving on wet surfaces) made him a champion, but his love for his country and faith seem to take him further. Kapadia assemblage of the footage gives Senna a humility that is sorely lacking in my chosen sport Football, although a quick glance at Messi and Kaka shows such personalities haven't completely died out.
There's no doubt that the way the film is put together makes Senna appear like he can do no wrong (it eschews an Eddie Irvine confrontation and a relationship with a 15 year old, which I found out after watching), such one sidedness stops us from seeing a Senna as a truly complete and flawed person. The Film makes Prost out to be a villain of sorts, but some his ominous comments about Senna help revel that the man's drive to compete could be as dangerous as it is inspiring. The film only touches on some of the political drama of the sport which provide some of the most revealing aspects of not only Senna as someone who wished for the safety of those who partake in the sport, but also the bullish and dogmatic talk that show up for the FIA. Being the person I am I would love to see what else was said within the offices and meeting rooms as opposed to some of the more fawning interviews.
This doesn't stop Senna from being the absorbing feature it is. Senna comes across as a man with strong morals and a caring personality. A wonderful moment during the credits involves a selfless Senna jumping out of his car to help another driver whose just crashed, while his talk about pure racing will touch anyone who remembers why they took up a sport when young. As a film Kapadia's wonderful usage of footage captures not only the tension of the boardrooms, but the high paced excitement of actually being in those races, while the home video and interviews show us a man with a warmth that I feel many wished the Hamltons, Messas and the like had. I for one; would particularly be chuffed if the England Football team took even half a page out of Senna's book. We still probably wouldn't win the world cup but they would definitely win more hearts within the nation.
Director: Asif Kapadia
Written By: Manish Pandey
Synopsis: A documentary that deals with the life and tragic early death of Ayrton Senna
I've never had any real interest in Formula 1 racing. In the same way people moan about football being overpaid men on a field kicking leather around, F1 to me is rich people in very fast cars driving around a track. I guess my disinterest in the sport stems from a disinterest in cars. I have my drivers licence, even owned a car at one point, but the way people react and interact when in these massive hunks of metal has always been a turn off. Also as a man who reads the back pages first, I've always seen how the politics have affected the sport, but then again name me a popular sport these days that hasn't been infected by money men and the like.
Senna is the perfect film for people who don't have an interest in the sport. Why? Because the subject himself; Ayrton Senna, appears so wonderfully grounded. It also helps that director Asif Kapadia and editors Chris King and Gregers Sall compile a film, not as a typical assembly of talking heads but as a full bodied drama, playing out in front of you with all the tension of many high class Hollywood features. Senna creates a such a riveting portrayal of a man and the sport he loves, that I became more intrigued not only in the man but the sport itself. This is what a good documentary should do.
Taking the most prominent aspect of Senna's life; his privileged yet determined upbringing, his battles against Allan Prost and the FIA, to his tragic final moments. It's put together with laser sighted precision (out of 15,000 hours of footage) and provides poignant insight into a man whose fearlessness (observe his driving on wet surfaces) made him a champion, but his love for his country and faith seem to take him further. Kapadia assemblage of the footage gives Senna a humility that is sorely lacking in my chosen sport Football, although a quick glance at Messi and Kaka shows such personalities haven't completely died out.
There's no doubt that the way the film is put together makes Senna appear like he can do no wrong (it eschews an Eddie Irvine confrontation and a relationship with a 15 year old, which I found out after watching), such one sidedness stops us from seeing a Senna as a truly complete and flawed person. The Film makes Prost out to be a villain of sorts, but some his ominous comments about Senna help revel that the man's drive to compete could be as dangerous as it is inspiring. The film only touches on some of the political drama of the sport which provide some of the most revealing aspects of not only Senna as someone who wished for the safety of those who partake in the sport, but also the bullish and dogmatic talk that show up for the FIA. Being the person I am I would love to see what else was said within the offices and meeting rooms as opposed to some of the more fawning interviews.
This doesn't stop Senna from being the absorbing feature it is. Senna comes across as a man with strong morals and a caring personality. A wonderful moment during the credits involves a selfless Senna jumping out of his car to help another driver whose just crashed, while his talk about pure racing will touch anyone who remembers why they took up a sport when young. As a film Kapadia's wonderful usage of footage captures not only the tension of the boardrooms, but the high paced excitement of actually being in those races, while the home video and interviews show us a man with a warmth that I feel many wished the Hamltons, Messas and the like had. I for one; would particularly be chuffed if the England Football team took even half a page out of Senna's book. We still probably wouldn't win the world cup but they would definitely win more hearts within the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)