That is the question most Arsenal fans have been pondering over the last couple of seasons. Speculation over Arsene Wenger's future as manager of Arsenal has intensified this season especially after cup exits against Bradford and Blackburn but also as a result of the clubs struggles in the premiership and champions league.
Wenger, in his 17th season as Arsenal manager is the second longest serving manager in England. In that time, Arsenal have never finished outside the top four; indeed in Wengers first nine years as manager, they never even finished outside the top two. That was a remarkable achievement by Wenger and should be acknowledged, especially given the frequency during those years when Arsenal were expected to falter under the challenge of other clubs such as Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool. The problem now is that while Arsenal, who are currently fifth, still have a strong chance of finishing in the top four this season, the club has never looked so far away from winning a trophy or challenging for the league.
So what has gone wrong?
This season has seen Arsenal knocked out of both cups by lower division opposition, the first time they have been knocked out by lower division opponents during Wengers time as manager. While you could forgive defeat by Blackburn, who are just one division below Arsenal, and were only relegated from the premiership last season, defeat by Bradford is far more unfathomable. Bradford are in the fourth tier of English football, 75 places below Arsenal. It was a game Arsenal should have won comfortably, but they had to come back from two goals down and then lost on penalties.
Arsenal have also suffered from a seeming inability to play from the start of a match or consistently well throughout. On several occasions this season the team havent started playing properly until the second half or relied on a few minutes of magic to get them through. By and large they have got away with this against weaker teams. Against stronger teams though they have been exposed and left with first half deficits that they couldn't surmount.
This all points to a lack of leadership and drive both on and off the pitch. Club captain Thomas Vermaelen is a fine defender but he is not vocal enough to be captain. He doesn't inspire or drive his team forward the way a captain should. And the responsibility of being captain seems to have weighed him down, with his performances dipping since becoming captain last summer following Robin VanPersies departure. The only player currently at Arsenal who does inspire and attempt to galvanise the team is Jack Wilshere. While he is a great player, at the age of 21, he is too young to bear that responsibility on his own.
Wengers transfer strategy, prioritising youth, potential and technical ability together with a rigid adherence to a certain style of play has led to signings such as Ramsey, Walcott, Chamberlain, Jenkinson, Gervinho. In the past two years, he has started to combine these younger signings with some more experienced ones such as Podolski, Cazorla, Arteta and Mertesacker. What all these players lack though is the strength of character, the spirit and determination to lead a team and drive it on to success even when it isn't playing well.
You have to ask why Wenger showed no interest in signing Scott Parker in 2011. He was available on the cheap from West Ham who had just been relegated, he had just won player of the season, was willing to take a pay cut and wanted to play champions league football which Arsenal could offer him. Instead he ended up at Tottenham who couldn't. Parker, a good all round midfielder would have helped bolster the midfield. Instead Arsenal signed Mikel Arteta, a decent player with more technical ability than Parker, but who unlike Parker won't do the physical work needed in a premiership midfield. When Arsenal then sold Alex Song in 2012, without replacing him, they were then left without any real physical presence in midfield or protection for the defence. It means Arsenal rely on technical ability to get round opposing teams, but leaves them with a soft core and a more vulnerable defence.
Yet it is obvious that Wenger doesn't see that as a problem, he has been quoted as saying that defensive midfielders are no longer needed in modern football. Considering the weakness of the Arsenal defence, it is blatantly obvious that a defensive midfielder is needed to sit in front of the defence and help it out. Wenger is a manager that has never been too concerned about the defensive side of the game. When he first became Arsenal manager in 1996, he didn't need to worry too much about the defence. The famous Arsenal back six had been the best defence in England for years, established by George Graham who was Arsenal manager from 1986-95. But as the defence aged, they had to be replaced and the Arsenal defence has largely struggled since. Sol Campbell filled the gap for a while and moving Kolo Toure from midfield to centre back was a master stroke. But signings such as Pascal Cygan, Phillippe Senderos, William Gallas and Sebastian Squillaci have been disastrous.
But more than bad players being a problem, it has been the defensive system, or lack of, that has been the problem. Under Wenger, Arsenal have tended to focus on playing the offside trap, and it has been more successful than most people seem to realise. But when it fails, it fails miserably. A good offside trap utterly relies on total communication between defenders which in the days of Adams and Keown was almost telepathic. That level of communication is obviously not there anymore. Meanwhile the fullbacks tend to push too far up the pitch in their drive to attack which leaves the centre-backs vulnerable. When they move wide to cover the fullbacks, they leave large spaces through the centre, which obviously isnt helped by the lack of a defensive midfielder. Tottenham exploited this very effectively in the recent game where both Tottenham goals were the result of a poor offside trap combined with centre backs leaving space in the middle.
This is something Wenger has to sort out. When Steve Bould was appointed assistant manager last summer, it was expected that he would work on improving the defensive organisation. And when Arsenal started the season with three clean sheets in three matches, it was thought that he had had an effect. But since then Arsenal have reverted to their old problems, while rumours have emerged of a split between Bould and Wenger. Maybe Wenger is too set in his ways to accept the change that needs to happen. Bould seems a more forthright assistant than his predecessor Pat Rice, so maybe Wenger is resisting him. Its impossible for me to say.
Outside the transfer window, Wenger cannot bring in new players before the end of the season, but he can try and sort out the teams defensive strategy. He needs to let Bould work with the defence on that. Arsenal have a reasonable run of fixtures coming up, which they can use to put pressure on Chelsea and Tottenham in the race for third. Now is not the time to decide whether Wenger should leave, but certainly at the end of the season, his situation has to be reviewed. Wengers current contract is due to run out in 2014. Maybe next season should be used by the club to have Wenger groom his successor, whether it is Steve Bould as has been suggested or someone else. Whatever happens, such has been Wengers influence on Arsenal, his departure will be a huge change and could require a long period of adjustment.
Monday, 11 March 2013
A Victory for the Pro-Choice Movement
The Choice and Feminist Societies at NUI Galway secured a significant victory in a referendum held last week. The referendum was to decide whether the Students Union should take a pro-choice stance. The exact proposition that was voted on was:
'That NUIG Students Union adopt a pro-choice position, in support of the national campaign for full reproductive rights, which includes a womans right to abortion, whether elective or medically neccessary. Furthermore, the SU should use every available measure to realise these rights on campus and nationally.'
This was a radical proposition that goes much further than the very limited legislation the government is expected to bring forward by the summer. And if we are to believe national polls, the referendum proposition went much further than public opinion. A poll in the Irish Times just last month found that only 37% of people fully supported a womans right to choose, although the poll found a large majority in favour of allowing abortion when a womans life/health are at risk or in cases of rape/incest or foetal abnormality.
Yet when the vote happened last Thursday, 70% of students who voted, supported the proposition. And this was with the highest voter turnout in years, possibly the highest ever in NUIG. Out of 3,596, votes, 2478 voted yes, 1118 voted no.
Obviously this reflects the fact that young people are generally more supportive of abortion rights. If the same vote was taken on a national basis the result would most likely be very different. But following on from success in referendums in Trinity College and DCU, it shows that things have changed drastically in this country.
Since the death of Savita Halapannavar, the issue of abortion has constantly been in the news. An issue that was brushed under the carpet for too long has emerged with people finally being emboldened to express their pro-choice sentiments. People were galvanised by Savita's death in a way that could never have been imagined. This showed during the campaign for a yes vote, with students and staff showing huge support for canvassers, while the no side came under constant attack.
The no side became increasingly desperate as the campaign week went on. Their posters were being defaced and removed all over campus. Their canvassers were mocked and abused. Many students said they were swung towards a yes vote by the no campaigners. At the forefront of the no campaign were the notorious Burke family. From Castlebar, they are known for their extremist views on homosexuality, marriage, divorce and abortion and regularly protest outside the Dail. At NUIG, they had been expelled from the Christian Union Society because of their extreme views. They used the Christian Union society name and logo for their own posters and leaflets against the referendum and spent the whole week putting up the posters. Even after it was found out that they had no permission to put the posters up, they continued to replace the ones taken down. They even resorted to following and harrassing yes campaigners. I, myself had three run ins with one of them, as she followed me around campus on Monday, and then spied on me and confronted me on two other occasions.
While the Burkes did their cause more damage than help with their extremist views and confrontational tactics annoying voters, far more worrying was the campaign for a no vote to keep the union neutral. Many people said that it wasn't appropriate for the Students Union to take a stance on such a divisive issue as it would alienate some students. And this line was trotted out by many students who claimed to be pro-choice. This is a rather ridiculous view as students unions have always taken political stances on issues such as the availability of contraception, the decriminalisation of homosexuality etc. Unions are there to take a stance for the best interests of their members, students unions seem to have lost that central tenet.
As it turned out, the vote no to keep the union neutral campaign was backed by religious groups trying not to scare voters off with the extremist tactics employed by the Burkes. But the keep the union neutral posters and leaflets were also illegal under the universities postering and leafletting policies as they had no name or organisation attached. What was obvious from the no campaign was that it was well funded, as all their posters and leaflets were glossy, colourful professional work, unlike the yes side who had to rely on black and white, amateur made literature.
So how did the yes side win? The Choice Society has only really been active since January yet we had more people campaigning. The Choice Society and Feminist Society worked together to cover the campus all week. We got talking to people and convinced them, we didn't rely on sensationalist and scaremongering slogans. And crucially, people voted, with the high turnout helping to win the referendum.
The vote came in the middle of the Abortion Rights Campaign's ten days of action for X case legislation, the first step towards abortion being allowed in this country. During the ten days, the campaign received huge support, with widespread participation, and this was reflected in the referendum.
And with the result of the referendum being announced on International Womens Day, the result was also very symbolic. It was a very fine way for NUIG to celebrate the day and it will live long in the memory for all those who campaigned.
The crucial battle in NUIG will now be making the SU follow the mandate they have been given. In the elections, held on the same day, Sean Kearns was elected President while Declan Higgins was elected Welfare officer. Both of them are anti-choice and so won't willingly campaign for choice. The SU will have to be pushed into doing so. Students need to push motions through the SU Council proposing specific actions that the SU can take such as a march for choice from NUIG. Students should also propose ways in which the SU can get involved with the national pro-choice campaign. When motions are passed by council, students will then have to keep pressure on the SU to follow them. The students who were galvanised to vote yes, need to be galvanised into taking action. The referendum was just the first step in what will be a long battle.
Pro-choice students in NUIG now have at least a year in which they can try and achieve real results on campus before another referendum can be held. Lets get to it!
'That NUIG Students Union adopt a pro-choice position, in support of the national campaign for full reproductive rights, which includes a womans right to abortion, whether elective or medically neccessary. Furthermore, the SU should use every available measure to realise these rights on campus and nationally.'
This was a radical proposition that goes much further than the very limited legislation the government is expected to bring forward by the summer. And if we are to believe national polls, the referendum proposition went much further than public opinion. A poll in the Irish Times just last month found that only 37% of people fully supported a womans right to choose, although the poll found a large majority in favour of allowing abortion when a womans life/health are at risk or in cases of rape/incest or foetal abnormality.
Yet when the vote happened last Thursday, 70% of students who voted, supported the proposition. And this was with the highest voter turnout in years, possibly the highest ever in NUIG. Out of 3,596, votes, 2478 voted yes, 1118 voted no.
Obviously this reflects the fact that young people are generally more supportive of abortion rights. If the same vote was taken on a national basis the result would most likely be very different. But following on from success in referendums in Trinity College and DCU, it shows that things have changed drastically in this country.
Since the death of Savita Halapannavar, the issue of abortion has constantly been in the news. An issue that was brushed under the carpet for too long has emerged with people finally being emboldened to express their pro-choice sentiments. People were galvanised by Savita's death in a way that could never have been imagined. This showed during the campaign for a yes vote, with students and staff showing huge support for canvassers, while the no side came under constant attack.
The no side became increasingly desperate as the campaign week went on. Their posters were being defaced and removed all over campus. Their canvassers were mocked and abused. Many students said they were swung towards a yes vote by the no campaigners. At the forefront of the no campaign were the notorious Burke family. From Castlebar, they are known for their extremist views on homosexuality, marriage, divorce and abortion and regularly protest outside the Dail. At NUIG, they had been expelled from the Christian Union Society because of their extreme views. They used the Christian Union society name and logo for their own posters and leaflets against the referendum and spent the whole week putting up the posters. Even after it was found out that they had no permission to put the posters up, they continued to replace the ones taken down. They even resorted to following and harrassing yes campaigners. I, myself had three run ins with one of them, as she followed me around campus on Monday, and then spied on me and confronted me on two other occasions.
While the Burkes did their cause more damage than help with their extremist views and confrontational tactics annoying voters, far more worrying was the campaign for a no vote to keep the union neutral. Many people said that it wasn't appropriate for the Students Union to take a stance on such a divisive issue as it would alienate some students. And this line was trotted out by many students who claimed to be pro-choice. This is a rather ridiculous view as students unions have always taken political stances on issues such as the availability of contraception, the decriminalisation of homosexuality etc. Unions are there to take a stance for the best interests of their members, students unions seem to have lost that central tenet.
As it turned out, the vote no to keep the union neutral campaign was backed by religious groups trying not to scare voters off with the extremist tactics employed by the Burkes. But the keep the union neutral posters and leaflets were also illegal under the universities postering and leafletting policies as they had no name or organisation attached. What was obvious from the no campaign was that it was well funded, as all their posters and leaflets were glossy, colourful professional work, unlike the yes side who had to rely on black and white, amateur made literature.
So how did the yes side win? The Choice Society has only really been active since January yet we had more people campaigning. The Choice Society and Feminist Society worked together to cover the campus all week. We got talking to people and convinced them, we didn't rely on sensationalist and scaremongering slogans. And crucially, people voted, with the high turnout helping to win the referendum.
The vote came in the middle of the Abortion Rights Campaign's ten days of action for X case legislation, the first step towards abortion being allowed in this country. During the ten days, the campaign received huge support, with widespread participation, and this was reflected in the referendum.
And with the result of the referendum being announced on International Womens Day, the result was also very symbolic. It was a very fine way for NUIG to celebrate the day and it will live long in the memory for all those who campaigned.
The crucial battle in NUIG will now be making the SU follow the mandate they have been given. In the elections, held on the same day, Sean Kearns was elected President while Declan Higgins was elected Welfare officer. Both of them are anti-choice and so won't willingly campaign for choice. The SU will have to be pushed into doing so. Students need to push motions through the SU Council proposing specific actions that the SU can take such as a march for choice from NUIG. Students should also propose ways in which the SU can get involved with the national pro-choice campaign. When motions are passed by council, students will then have to keep pressure on the SU to follow them. The students who were galvanised to vote yes, need to be galvanised into taking action. The referendum was just the first step in what will be a long battle.
Pro-choice students in NUIG now have at least a year in which they can try and achieve real results on campus before another referendum can be held. Lets get to it!
Monday, 25 February 2013
Post Oscar Film Review
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)