I wished I’d seen Baraka. Because I think it might have made this film easier to review.
Samsara is a stunning piece of work. The film takes us across a world damaged by disaster, mechanised by industry, shrouded in ritual and punctuated by beauty. This world.
Read MoreIn more ways than one.
Man of the moment, Michael Fassbender, plays Brandon Sullivan, an Irish-American business suit type with an addiction to porn and sex with anonymous strangers. His life is going… relatively well really. His job hasn’t yet cottoned on to his problem – or at the least he must be making them enough money for it to not be a problem – and the ladies seem to fall at his feet. That is until his hot mess of a sister (Carey Mulligan) turns up.
That’s pretty much it. Ah no, it’s not really but it may as well be.
To be honest, I was sorely disappointed by Shame. There was so much buzz, so much hype around it and I just don’t think it’s worthy.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t see it, Michael Fassbender puts on an excellent performance, one that may even warrant the honour of an Oscar nomination, but – in my opinion of course – there isn’t much more reason to see it. I’m just not sure why it’s a film at all. It is an intimate and granular portrait of a man consumed by his demons, no doubt, but as a film it just didn’t make for compelling viewing, for me.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. Looking back over my review of director Steve McQueen’s last film, Hunger, I had similar issues. Not quite the same but similar. In Hunger we weren’t shown any of the motivations for the characters. That wasn’t a problem for it though, there was a delicate balance to be struck in telling the story of Bobby Sands’ last days on earth and McQueen managed it. Shame is an entirely different kind of story though and I think McQueen needed to take a chance here and bring us a more critical eye, or perhaps a more benign one, I’m not fussy. Any kind of commentary would have been welcome.
Like in Hunger, Fassbender’s nymphomaniac exists without any context or motivation. He is an empty vessel, waiting to be (ful)filled. We never get a sense of who he is beyond his addiction and we never… get beyond his addiction. There are some excellent and moving scenes with Mulligan but there’s a tendency to stifle the emotion. Which is, ostensibly, the perogative of the character but as a viewer it merely leads to frustration.
It’s also, probably, worth mention that this is an 18 rated movie and, as you would expect, is rife with relatively explicit scenes of a sexual nature. His hypersexuality is depicted time and time again, to the point that it gets quite boring. I imagine perhaps this is the point… however, it still means you’re boring your audience.
It is, therefore, a shame. Shame, because I think that there’s a lot more in the story that could have been explored. Shame, that Fassbender’s fantastically nuanced performance lies flat in a film that seems content to pinwheel around random meaningless encounters. And lastly, Shame, because I had to sit through another movie where Carey Mulligan seems intent on maintaining her 70:30, crying to not-crying, ratio of screen time.
I feel like I’m being unecessarily harsh. There were things I liked about it… I liked how it looked. There were some nice shots, I particularly liked the running scene. I liked the music… I didn’t actually hate the film. Fassbender gives us a perfect, outsider sense of who Sullivan is at this point in his life. As a portrait of a man, it is crystalline. You feel his torment in his eyes, in the lines of his face… But there’s just nothing there at the core. I don’t know what this film was trying to say to me… All I can say is… Why?
And don’t get me started on the ending. I was truly riled by the ending. I’m not going to give it away but I could probably write another few paragraphs on what was wrong with the 5 mins or so of the film…
… Sorry, I just had to get that in there.
5.5/10
Read More
At this stage any film reviewer worth their salt has seen Lars von Trier‘s latest film, Antichrist. The controversy that ensued after its screening at Cannes meant that it was top of my list of “must see” arthouse films this year.
I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor “average” but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn’t see this one then I’d never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don’t actually have a list of “must see” arthouse films, just “must see” films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.
As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I’ve seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven’t seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don’t know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don’t watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.
There’s no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you’re reading because you want to know my opinion… and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we’re talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you’re going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it’s well worth a watch.
On a basic level it’s an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It’s driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It’s also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole “enviroment reflecting the state of mind” device… but then again, I do think it can work so don’t take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I’m certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don’t know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.
I have to reference a couple of films here – Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I’m straying away from the “average film review” ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn’t recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I’m saying it’s ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove 
But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn’t worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you’re watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven’t seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they’re not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.
There’s been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I’ve read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier’s body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that’s personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it’s their film. If there’s some link in the stories or if it’s a sequel then that’s different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn’t important, it’s the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn’t think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it’s open to be interpreted in different ways and if that’s the way one chooses to interpret it well… as always, how you view a film is up to you.
I’ve digressed again so I’ll finish off… Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It’s interesting like that.
8.5/10
Read More
Park Chan-wook could hardly be described as a household name in the western world however, his films probably are much more noted than those of some other Asian directors. Park Chan-wook is the director of The Vengence Trilogy which comprises of Sympathy for Mr. Vengence, Oldboy and Lady Vengence – and he really can do revenge.
I’m a Cyborg, But That’s Okay is a bit of a departure from those films though, for starters it’s a comedy. A bit of an odd comedy granted, but mostly a comedy. Cha Young-goon (played by Lim Su-jeong)is a girl who’s in a mental home because she believes she is a combat cyborg. Actually Young-goon’s main problem is not that the fact that she thinks she’s a cyborg, her problem is that because of this she will not eat and spends her days licking batteries and trying to talk to the machines around her. Anyway, in the hospital she meets a whole host of other patients, each with their own set of problems, including a handsome young man called Park Il-sun (played by the popular Korean singer Rain who believes he has the ability to steal anything from anyone, including personality traits.
So, what we have is essentially a love story with a twist. The twist being that it’s in a mental hospital. I really liked this film, though I’m starting to truly believe that I like all films. It was a sweet story, it had a good few laughs but I thought it managed to deal with creating the characters without getting too caught up in the mental hospital aspect of everything. There was a good balance there between the craziness of the situation and the core of what made the characters the way they were. It put me in mind of another Korean director – Bong Joon-ho who directed Memories of Murder and The Host – not because he’s Korean particularly but because he’s very good at getting that mix between humour and darkness. I can’t think of any up-and-coming American director doing that at the moment.
Anyway, I don’t have much else to say about this film except that it’s well worth a watch. I saw it in a packed theatre as part of the 2008 Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. I’m not sure if it’s going on general or even arthouse release wherever you are dear reader, however if you have a chance I would recommend watching it, even if you have to go searching for it in some odd video rental store.
Oh wait, two other things worth noting; nobody pulls out any teeth with hammer nor does anyone eat a live octopus in this film!
8/10
Read MoreIan Curtis died on May 18th, 1980. He was 23 years old.
Control is a biographical film based on the 1995 memoirs of Ian Curtis’s wife, Deborah Curtis, entitled Touching From A Distance. It is directed by acclaimed photographer and music video director Anton Corbijn.
Shot in colour than transferred to black and white, Control is a portait of a man who didn’t seem to fit, no matter how much he wanted to. The film starts with Ian in school, just before meeting his future wife and chronicles the formation of the band, it’s signing, including the apocryphal tale of Tony Wilson signing the contract with the band in his own blood, Ian Curtis’s diagnosis of epilepsy and his downward spiral into depression, culminating with the events just before the band’s first scheduled US tour.
Despite the dark and depressing nature of the subject matter, this film isn’t particularly difficult to watch. I don’t know if that’s a good thing though, perhaps it should have been. It’s an interesting story that focuses on Ian Curtis’s life and relationships, as opposed to any telling of the band’s days on the road or anything like that. Looking back I suppose, given that it’s based on Deborah’s memoirs (and she was left at home with their baby), this is partly out of necessity. Also, given that it’s based on Deborah’s memoirs, it’s very balanced. What the film gives you is quite a stylised telling of the pressures that Ian Curtis faced and the pressures that he placed on himself. It doesn’t blame anyone for his death nor does it particularly romanticise his life, he was a normal man who just couldn’t cope with what was going on around him.
To be honest I’m not sure if it’s really right to rate this film as there are so many ways interpret a person’s life and to rate this film would be rating this particular interpretation. I don’t feel particularly qualified to do that, I didn’t know the guy. What I will say is that there were only really two or three moments in it that I really felt a truth to it, which is not to say that any of it was lies, but in many ways it did just feel like a story. The scenes involving Debbie and Ian around the housewarming party, during and after, and then one particular scene when Ian talks about how much he gives on stage but it’s never enough. Those scenes, I think, are really the most important scenes in the film, they give the couple character and sympathy.
What I can say, in terms of rating the film, is that the acting by the two leads – Sam Riley and Samantha Morton – was excellent. Having watched some videos of Joy Division now on youtube, Sam Riley had him spot on. Also, it looks great, the fact that Anton Corbijn is a photographer is obvious.
My main, and possibly quite odd, criticism of the film is that I felt it was missing a sense of time. I didn’t really know anything about Ian Curtis beforehand and it felt like a lot of time had passed between each scenes. I had no idea he was so young when he died and I think I would have looked at it a bit differently if I had had any idea of how quickly everything happened.
Anyway, on the whole this was a relatively entertaining way of spending 2 hours. I don’t think I could say that it was really fascinating but the music was great – I have to say, that song Love Will Tear Us Apart is one of my all time favourites – as were the performances. It really is a sad tale and one can’t help but wonder how things could have been. Of course, there’s no way of knowing…
7/10
Read More