or: The Art and Joy of Film Criticism
Beautiful Creatures
Dir. Richard LaGravenese. Starring: Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis & Emmy Rossum
Release date NL: 14 February 2013
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
Dir. Harald Zwart. Starring: Lena Heady, Lily Collins, Jonathan Rhys Meyers & Jared Harris
Release date NL: TBA
The Heat
Dir. Paul Feig. Starring: Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy & Demian Bichir
Release date NL: 18 April 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard
Dir. John Moore. Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and (rumoured) Patrick Stewart
Release date NL: February 14, 2013
Despicable Me 2
Dir. Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud. Voices by: Steve Carrell, Al Pacino, Kristen Wiig, Russell Brand & Steve Coogan
Release date NL: July 3, 2013
Lincoln
Dir. Steven Spielberg. Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Jospeh Gordon-Levitt, David Strathairn, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haly, Tim Blake Nelson, Jared Harris & Tommy Lee Jones
Release date NL: January 13, 2013
Side Effects
Dir. Steve Soderbergh. Starring: Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Jude Law & Catherine Zeta-Jones
Release date NL: March 7, 2013
Story: A mission in Istanbul ends in failure, with Bond (Daniel Craig) pressumed dead and a harddisk with vital data missing. At home, ‘M’ (Judi Dench) is under attacks from government officials and an old foe from her past. But when Bond reappears to save the day, he may no longer be the lethal weapon he once was.
The 23rd official James Bond film came with high expectations, and some dread. After all, it was the film that would celebrate fifty years of James Bond (Dr. No, the first film, was released 1962). It starred an actor who many consider the best James Bond since Sean Connery, and was directed by award winning director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road). The dread was that the Bond series would not be able to return to the level of Casino Royale (2006) after the unfortunate Quantum of Solace (2008). And was a high profile ‘serious’ director the right person to direct an action adventure? Would the weight of history drag Bond down or would it give him wings?
Fair is fair, it is quite a relief that Skyfall is a really good James Bond film. It is more than that. It is a really good film. However, it is not as good as some English reviewers would have us believe. In their common, patriottically inspired enthusiasm – in which each new Bond is greeted as wither the best or the worst ever – they hailed Skyfall as the highlight of the franchise’s history. I sincerely doubt this. Skyfall is good, but I doubt whether it is up there with Goldfinger and Casino Royale.
Let su start with the really good things then. First there is an impressive cast, filling a series of iconic roles. Craig is excellent as Bond. I am amongst those who rate him higher than Connery, especially considering the demands of the role in the serious reboot that the series got with Casino Royale. Equally brilliant, and finally in a substantial role, is Judi Dench as M. Javier Bardem’s Silva is one of the scariest but also one of the most believable villains Bond has ever faced. And as if that were not enough, supporting roles are filled with enthusiasm and energy by the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and Albert Finney. Bérénice Marlohe and Noamie Harris are interesting Bond girls.
As important as a good cast is a good script. And Skyfall’s plot is serious and grown-up, but also straightforward and founded in a ‘real’ modern world. As GoldenEye (1995) once tried to be, it is a thoughtful meditation on the role of Bond in a digital, post-Cold War world. The film also looks gorgeous, courtesy of cinematographer Roger Deakins. Perhaps a little too gorgeous, as some of the more aesthetic shots hint at the artificiality of Bond’s universe.
Which brings me to my main point of critique. Skyfall’s weakest part is exactly its history. It tries, too much to my taste, to honor the past. Thereby it does not only highlight its artificiality, but it also makes the film predictable, especially in the second half. A number of, what appear to be, red herrings are set up in the plot. And then you don’t expect everything to work out exactly as you’d expect things to work out. It is one thing to bring back the Aston Martin, it is quite another thing to use it the way the film does (see how I try not to give too much away here?). The same is true for a number of ‘unexpected’ character developments.
But hey, what does it say about Skyfall that those are my main points of concern? Only that the rest of the film is really, really good.
Final verdict: Not just a return to form, for Bond, but a return to format as well. An excellent episode that finishes the job Casino Royale started: to set up a new Bond in a new universe. If only it had the balls to let go a little more of the past.
“He Jasper, you know films, right? What do you think is the best film? Ever?” Wow. You know, that is not what I do. Anyone who “knows his films” would be able to tell you that. There is no way to argue that Jaws is better than Fargo, or Casablanca is superior to The Return of the King (well, that’s an argument I’m willing to get into). You can’t compare them. These films were made in different times, under different circumstances, with different means and intentions and different audiences. You can’t ask me which one is better.
And yet so many people do.
But lately someone asked me a much more sensible question. “Jasper, you know your films. Is there anything you could recommend? You know, like something I wouldn’t think of myself?”
Well yes there is! I mean, there are! So many! Like:
Manhunter (Michael Mann, 1986)\
We all know Hannibal Lecter. The eloquent and highly intelligent psychiatrist cum cannibal. Anthony Hopkins played this role with great success in The Silence of the Lambs, and with less success in its sequels Hannibal and Red Dragon. What very few people know, however, is that Red Dragon is chronologically the first in the series of novels Thomas Harris wrote about Hannibal Lecter. And that It had been adapted for the screen much earlier, six years before Sir Anthony ate liver and drank Chianti, as Manhunter.
The director of Manhunter is Michael Mann, the maker of moody thrillers such as Collateral and Public Enemies, and thundering action films like Heat and Miami Vice. Manhunter, however, predates all these films. And surpasses most of them (all of them actually, apart from Heat). It tells the story of Will Graham (CSI‘s William Petersen, much younger), a former FBI agent who once was Lecter’s capturer. Now FBI boss Crawford (Dennis Farina) asks him to come back to investigate to killings of families, and like Clarice Starling later, Graham needs Lecter’s help.
Manhunter‘s biggest handicap is its more than obvious 1980s style. At his worst Michael Mann offers style over substance (Public Enemies), and at his best the two match perfectly. Manhunter stands somehwere in the middle. The 1980s looks and music of the film are very dominant, but at the same time they capture the heat of the summer in which the story is set and its depressing subject matter. Also, crucially, and this is an argument that can only be made in retrospect, style-over-substance very much fits the hedonism and material preoccupation of the 1980s.
The most shocking and impressing thing in Manhunter is Hannibal Lecter though. His actual screentime is limited, but his presence in Will Graham’s mind and the scars he left there are always tangible. Moreover, he is played with true villainy by the fantastic Brian Cox (who most of you will have seen in supporting roles in Troy and The Bourne Supremacy). In comparison to the calculated menace and cruelty of Cox’ Lecter, Anthony Hopkins’ take on the role is nigh clownesk. Hopkins’ Lecter almost feels like that crazy uncle every family has and secretly loves. Nobody in their right mind would turn an impersonation of Brian Cox in Manhunter into a party trick, whereas everybody can do the liver-and-chianti bit.
Order here (Amazon, if you wanna pay me for these links, you’re more than welcome)
There is something that remains itching when you think about a Guy Ritchie adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s iconic detective Sherlock Holmes. Especially if it is to star American smart talking wise-ass Robert Downey Jr. And even with knowledge of the very entertaining 2009 first effort, the very idea, when anticipating sequel A Game of Shadows, is wrong. Just so wrong.
And it almost goes wrong in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Let me just list some of the movies’ faults, and then continue with its strong points; because the film does have them and they do save it.
The first thing that is wrong is the plot. It starts in the middle of Holmes’ investigations into a series of diverging but connected crimes planned and executed by his literary arch-nemesis: Professor James Moriarty. That is just wrong: Holmes is all about figuring out a mysterious puzzle, and finding the culprit. Starting halfway through leaves very little detectiving to do.
As a result the story is rather thin, and for a ‘Napoleon of Crime’ Moriarty (excellently played by Mad Men’s Jared Harris) has a rather boring big scheme. It is merely an excuse to send Holmes and his sidekick Watson (Jude Law) to Paris and Germany. But I think that Homes should never leaveLondon, let alone England (see what happens to him when he ventures to Switzerland).
The first half of the film is self-indulging, surface-obsessed baroque gets-the-blood-from-under-your-fingernails kinda affair without any emotional pull or narrative necessity. The relationship between Holmes and Watson, the centerpiece of any good Conan Doyle adaptation and a strong element in the previous film, is not further developed.
It is only past the halfway mark; during the German set piece; that stuff starts to really happen, for the characters I mean. Suddenly the stakes are raised, there is some serious danger and Holmes and Dawson are forced to redefine their partnership.
This is the moment that the good casting starts to pay of, and Downey Jr. and Jude Law finally get to do more than bicker like an elderly couple. Unfortunately it is also the moment at which it becomes apparent that Stephen Fry serves as mere comic relief, and that the fabulous Noomi Rapace’s is underused as a Gipsy fortune teller – a possible romantic interest for Holmes that is never developed, perhaps because of memories of Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, in this film in a cameo role). Infuriatingly, here it is the poor execution of the film’s first half that robs the good second half of the emotional heft that it could possibly have.
But there are Downey Jr. and Law, and they shine. And Moriarty is a worthy opponent to Holmes, excelling in the same skills that make the detective such a formidable chess player and fighter. You will truly hold your breath during the Reichenbach-set climax. Unfortunately it is followed by a franchise-perpetuating cheat in the final scene. But that is just something you have to live with when watching these kinds of films.
The movie formerly known as Bond 23 has a title. And that title is Skyfall. This has been announced at a press conference inLondon yesterday by director Sam Mendes.
What a minute. Sam Mendes? He of American Beauty and Revolutionary Road directing a traditional action flick? Yes. Sam Mendes. When this was announced it sparked rumors that Bond 23 would be low on action and heavy on dialogue and character. But Mendes denied these rumors at the press conference by saying that Skyfall will have “all the elements of a classic Bond movie including, to quell any rumors, a lot of action”. Good.
So whadawethink, titlewise? Skyfall? Well, it does not have the mysterious quality of The Man With the Golden Gun or From Russia With Love, but it does beat such garbly nonsense as Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. And one-word-titles have turned out to be good films in the past: Goldfinger, Goldeneye. Although there are also, oops, Moonraker and Octopussy. Skyfall is not a title with any connection to the Ian Fleming universe. The name is otherwise known as that of a Transformer (though not one from the Bay-films) and as the title of several fantasy novels. What is a Skyfall then? Perhaps a plan, or a machine, or a weapon… You can place your bets now.
The script is written by regular Bond writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade and guest writer John Logan (Gladiator, Rango, the upcoming Scorsese film Hugo). Mendes and producer Barbara Broccoli would not reveal much about the plot except for this little blurp:
“Bond’s loyalty to M is tested to the full as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.”
Okay. That sounds exciting enough. But what about Quantum; the mysterious organization from the last two movies? Mendes says that Skyfall is its own story and does not feature Quantum. I find that disappointing. Surely, Quantum of Solace was massively flawed, but I had invested interest in the SPECTRE like secret conspiracy and its mysterious leader Mr. White (Jesper Christensen). I want to see Mr. White getting sucked into a jet engine or ripped to pieces by a giant underwater drill. As I said, a bit of a disappointing move.
Talking casting: Daniel Craig will return as Bond, thank God, he is definitely good enough to do a considerable number of films as 007. Judi Dench will be ‘M’ again, which is also reassuring. New names are (take a deep breath): Ralph Fiennes AND Javier Bardem as bad guys (Bond teaming up against Voldemort and Anton Chigurh, wow!), Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe as Bond girls, Albert Finney (The Bourne Ultimatum) as a government official and Ben Whishaw (Perfume, The Tempest) as an unnamed character.
Filming will take place in London, Istanbul, Shanghai and Scotland. Skyfall is planned to premiere on October 26 2012 in the UK, and one week later in the US and The Netherlands. That is all so far. Apart from this nice piece of traditional Bond artwork:
The central point that Christopher Frayling – in his book Sergio Leone. Something To Do With Death – makes with regard to Leone’s film Once Upon a Time in the West is that its title was mistranslated from Italian to English. The Italian title of this spaghetti western was C’era Una Volta: Il West, which literally translates as: “Once There Was: The West”. The mistranslation may have been intended, after all, Once Upon a Time… sounds much better. But according to Frayling the entire meaning of the film changes with its new title.
Once Upon a Time…indicates that we have to do with a fairy tale. The characters and situations may be recognizable due to cultural conventions, but ontologically they stand as far away from us as Hans Christian Andersen’s Little Mermaid. Once There Was: The West on the other hand implies historical veracity. Its use of the simple past ‘was’ in its title suggests that the West that is being referred to no longer exists. Also, ‘West’ in this title refers not only to the historical West, but also to the genre of the western. Christopher Frayling, by telling us how Once Upon a Time in the West is not only a film about death and about the end of the West – the final arrival of civilization in the wild expanses of the pioneer and the outlaw – but also about the death of a genre, shows how the mistranslation of the title changes our understanding of the film’s deeper levels of meaning.
When Leone’s film is framed as a fairytale, with its American title, we may be led to believe that the West is still out there. Following Frayling’s argument and accepting the Italian title as the original, we have to acknowledge that classical westerns simply cannot be made after 1968. Granted: Sam Peckinpah could still make his own film about the end of the west, The Wild Bunch, in 1969. And in many ways these two films, Once Upon a Time in the West and The Wild Bunch, can be considered twins, or cinematic soul mates. And of course Clint Eastwood’s 1992 return to the West, Unforgiven, is a fantastic film. However, it is not so much a western as a tragedy, more or less accidentally set in that specific time and place. It tells the story of a settled old gunslinger, taking his arms up once more to find redemption for his past crimes. It is, unfortunately, less known than it should be.
But recent attempts at breathing new life into the classical western have failed to do so. It would be unfair to suggest that Seraphim Falls (Von Ancken, 2006), The 3:10 to Yuma (Mangold, 2007) or Appaloosa (Harris, 2008) are bad films. They most certainly are not. They do feel, and it is a terrible thing to say, redundant. The exploration of endless spaces has moved on to galaxies far far away (notice the fairy tale opening of the Star Wars films).
All of which brings me back to a previous post on this blog. In The Guitar Chord Effecting the Mix Up of Right and Wrong I argued that in Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End conventions of the spaghetti western are temporarily invoked or abused in order to suspend judgement of a scene caught in moral limbo. At the time, though, I failed to realize that they are not temprarily invoked. Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End is essentially a spaghetti swashbuckler. Or to be precise: it is to the blockbuster what Once Upon a Time in the West was to the western. The film that marks the end of that type of films. Or if not the literal end: the boundary of the possibilty to satisfactorily produce one.
Thematically Pirates 3 invokes a melancholy about the end of ‘free’ piracy. The East India Trading Company is maniacally hunting down every pirate in the open seas, effectively putting the likes of Jack Sparrow on the endangered species list. They have even gained control over the otherworldy submarine monsters of the Ocean, going so far as killing off Davy Jones’ beloved Kraken. Faced with the decaying remains of this former nemesis Jack Sparrow and Barbosa lament the changing tide:
Barbossa: Still thinkin’ of running, Jack? Think you can outrun the world? You know the problem with being the last of anything, by and by there be none left at all.
And a moment later:
Barbossa: The world used to be a bigger place.
Jack Sparrow: World’s still the same. There’s just less in it.
That this is not mere melancholy is pointed out by the villain of the movie, Lord Cutler Beckett. Already in the second film he points out that there is no more place in this world for pirates such as Jack Sparrow, as the East India Trading Company takes control over the Carribean – much like the railroad companies took over the West.
As the end of the blockbuster film, it must be said, Pirates 3 seems rather ineffective. Not in the least because Pirates 4 is in the making and is set for 2011. The annual onslaught of blockbusters that is heading for us at this very moment proves that they are still made. However, what we are being served now, and have been served since 2007, does not come close to offering the mindless yet excitement that we got from Armageddon (Bay, 1998), for example. 2008’s The Dark Knight has changed things. Forever.
To be continued.
