After the Oscars 2013, I thought i'd give my views on some of the main winners. Havent seen Argo yet , so won't review that but have seen the other major winners so here goes.
I'll start with Life of Pi which won Best Director for Ang Lee. I'll admit, i'm usually a fan of Ang Lee; an ouevre that includes Brokeback Mountain, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Ice Storm and Ride with the Devil means such mistakes as Hulk can be forgiven. So i went to see Life of Pi with high hopes and expectations, especially following the largely positive reviews from mainstream film critics.
What can be said about all of Lee's films, is that they are visually fantastic and Life of Pi certainly lives up to that. The film details the adventures and travails of a teenager Pi Patel who, while emigrating from India to Canada with his zookeeping family, is shipwrecked in the Pacific. He survives the wreck by climbing aboard a lifeboat where he is left with a zebra, a hyena, a monkey and a bengal tiger for company. After a slow buildup, this is where the film comes alive. The storm that wrecks the ship is suitably dramatic. The animals are beautifully rendered and the scenes at sea are often stunning with the 3-D really bringing the film to life.
The problem with the film lies mainly when it is on dry land. The slow buildup to the shipwreck drags on and the framing device whereby the older Pi tells his life story to an english writer seems completely unneccessary and quite frankly boring. All this means the film at 127 minutes felt at least 30 minutes too long, and particularly after Pi reached dry land, i just wanted the film to end.
The other problem with the film lies with its exploration of religion and faith. Pi grew up with a fascination with religion, but then doubts the existence of God after the shipwreck. By the end, his faith is restored by natures beauty and wonder and his eventual reaching of land. As an atheist, i don't share or appreciate Pi's faith, it means nothing to me, has no effect on me. Maybe to someone who is religious, watching the film would reaffirm their faith, but there is no affirmation for someone who had no faith to begin with. The religious element of the film just left me bored and uninterested. Maybe i'm being overly harsh.
Next up is Lincoln, for which Daniel Day-Lewis won best actor. Again i found this boring and overly long albeit for different reasons. The film details Abraham Lincoln's efforts to get legislation through Congress to abolish slavery, as he sees it as being the only way to end the American Civil War. This could have been an interesting film about Lincoln as a person, or about the civil war, or about the experiences of slaves escaping servitude. Instead it is an overly talky political procedural in which various (white male) politicians argue and Lincoln resorts to talking to, bribing and emotionally blackmailing them to get their votes.
There are too many characters, all with their own stories, to follow or develop any interest in or sympathy for. Various illustrious actors (John Hawkes, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jackie Earle Haley, Jared Harris, Hal Holbrook all come to mind) are wasted in small roles.
Daniel Day-Lewis' performance was nothing special and easily the weakest of the three he has now won Oscars for. Sally Field was completely over the top and annoying as Lincolns wife Mary. The only actors who come out of the film particularly well are Tommy Lee Jones as the sincere but conflicted Thaddeus Stevens and David Strathairn as Lincoln's Secretary of State.
The film aimed to be a study of a particular period in the life and career of Lincoln, but did not delve deeply enough into his character, or crucially, his motivations for abolishing slavery which surely should have been at the core of the film. The film also lacked any dramatic tension, with any potential for it being halted by cuts to other scenes. All in all, Lincoln is another historical epic from Steven Spielberg that fails to offer anything new, fails to challenge the viewer, and is ultimately tainted by his characteristic sentimentality. Ultimately the biggest criticism that should be levelled at Lincoln is, that for all its discussion of slavery there are no slaves actually in the film. The film does nothing to addrress the horrors of slavery in any real way.
And so that brings me onto the next film, Django Unchained which certainly does not hold back in its depiction of slavery. The film tells the story of a slave Django, played by Jamie Foxx, who is freed by the bounty hunter Dr. King Schulz, played by Christoph Waltz, winner of Best Supporting Actor for his role. Mixing elements of old spaghetti westerns and blaxploitation with his trademark wit, director Quentin Tarantino has created a hugely entertaining revenge film. We get to see Schulz and Django team up to kill bad guys, criminals and slaveowners, with Django on a mission to free his wife Broomhilda from her owner Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio.
Tarantino, never one to shy away from extreme violence, shows the horrors of slavery in graphic detail, with slaves whipped brutally, forced to fight each other to the death and even being torn apart by dogs. The film is certainly not for the squeamish as violence in Tarantino's films has never seemed so real as this. Maybe it is the historical context, more likely it is because the violence towards the slaves isn't played for comic value as it is in other Tarantino films. In these moments, it is deadly serious, and righteously angry and spurs on the viewers sympathies towards Django and Schulz.
Tarantino makes very clear his sympathies both through the violence, but also his depiction of the white people in the film. With the exception of the suave and cunning Calvin Candie, the others are depicted as ignorant country hicks. Therefore it is easy for viewers to see them being killed and cheer on Django. The film makes no differentiation between the rich slave owners and the poor white workers who are also being exploited although obviously not in the same way.
Despite this caveat, Django Unchained is easily Tarantinos most enjoyable film since Jackie Brown. It has a good plot, great characters, great dialogue, great soundtrack. Waltz and DiCaprio steal the show from an overwhelmed Foxx. Foxx was never that great an actor, and faced by Waltz and DiCaprio on top form, he didn't stand a chance, although he isn't helped by them getting all the best lines. There is also strong support from Samuel L. Jackson and Don Johnson with several well known actors making cameos. The film does go on a bit too long, with the last 20 minutes in particular seeming unneccessary, not helped by Tarantino's late cameo but that can be forgiven after the brilliance before it.
From Django to another historical epic, although completely different, the musical Les Miserables, based on the stage musical which was an adaptation of the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. I was in the middle of reading the novel when i saw the film so i was interested in seeing how they adapted it, especially how they could get a 1200 page novel into two and a half hours. Of course, not everything could be included, and much of the novel is virtually unfilmable anyway. The story concerns the convict Jean Valjean, played by Hugh Jackman, who is released on parole and attempts to rebuild his life. He had served nearly twenty years in prison and doing hard labour for initially stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, with his sentence being extended for several attempts at escape. Understandably, Valjean starts the story as a bitter, angry man, his life ruined by a cruel and unfair justice system.
The film doesn't make as much of the injustice of the treatment of Valjean as the novel does, preferring to move swiftly on towards his redemption. Valjean changes his identity and becomes a successful businessman but he is discovered by the ruthless police captain Javert, who is relentless in pursuing Valjean. Valjean escapes into hiding in Paris with Cosette, a young girl he has adopted as his own after her mother Fantine, a former employee had died.
The film then jumps several years and introduces a group of young students, planning a revolution against the monarchy. The film never really delves into the students motivations, and they are badly organised and the revolution is easily crushed by the army. One of the student leaders, Marius has fallen in love with Cosette though and thus he is rescued by Valjean from certain death. The romance between Marius and Cosette isn't developed enough in the film and it is hard for the viewer to understand what Marius sees in Cosette, especially after he turns down the beautiful Eponine.
Overall, it is an enjoyable film. The director Tom Hooper, differentiated it from previous film versions by having the actors sing live on set during filming. This mostly works, with most of the actors being proficient singers with Anne Hathaway really standing out. She is fully deserving of the Best Supporting Actress oscar for the role. But Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne as Marius, Samantha Barks as Eponine all impress. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter help lighten the mood of what is otherwise a very dark film. The only blot acting wise is Russell Crowe as Javert, fine as an actor, but he can't sing at all. I couldn't help but cringe every time he started singing.
The songs though are generally well sung, and suitably emotional or rousing and the film looks impeccable. It is unfortunate that the film skates over the complex political polemics of the novel but taken as just the film, it is entertaining and enjoyable.
The last film i am reviewing in this post is Silver Linings Playbook for which Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress. The film is about former teacher Pat Solitano, released after a stint in a psychiatric institution who moves back in with his parents and attempts to rebuild his life with the ultimate aim of getting back together with his wife. He was admitted to the institution on a court order after attacking his wifes lover, and she now has a restraining order on him. Solitano, played by Bradley Cooper, has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. He meets a young woman, Tiffany, played by Jennifer Lawrence, a widow who has been using sex as a way of covering up her problems. United by their difficulties, they strike up a friendship as they help each other out.
The film is well acted by the two leads, especially Lawrence, and they are ably supported by Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver as Solitano's parents. It is easily DeNiro's least annoying role in years, while Weaver gives a subtle, understated performance. The film is to be commended for its fair depiction of mental health problems. The plot is very predictable though and the ending is particularly contrived and cliched. It is a rather insubstantial film and feels very small compared to the other films reviewed here. Its not a bad film, just not particularly interesting either.
Monday 25 February 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)