The Big Fat Review Part I (Life of Pi, Lincoln & Django Unchained)

Story: It has been two months since I last posted a film review on this site. I just stopped writing, in the middle of the Oscar season. I had my reasons and I can come up with good excuses, but I also have something better. The Big Fat Review. Because the fact that I stopped writing about films, does not mean that I stopped watching them.

Life of Pi was astonishing. Mind-blowingly beautiful. I felt a bit uncomfortable at first with the entire religion subtext, but Oscar winning director Ang Lee solved this problem beautifully in the last act.  Central to this film is not, in my opinion, that this is a story that will make you believe in God. Life of Pi is a film that makes you understand why people, when confronted with circumstances wildly beyond their control, choose to believe in God. Curiously, the visual effects company that won the Life of Pi its second Oscar has gone bankrupt.

There is no director in the history of movies who can get away with a philosophical discussion in the middle of a dinosaur-movie for kids, and who also directs a political debate in a historical drama as if it were a nail biting action scene. Lincoln is a classic example of ‘pompous Spielberg’, following such films as Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, Amistad and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. This does not mean that the film is not good. Because it quite clearly is. Daniel Day-Lewis is astonishing as Lincoln, but his thunderous performance does draw too much attention away from equally fantastic turns by Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Curiously, while Lincoln was about the political fight for the abolition of slavery, it did not bother showing or pointing out what a terrible injustice and crime it was. That specific historical lesson is told by Quentin Tarantino in Django Unchained, his long-awaited ‘Southern’.  I have my issues with Tarantino, and these issues played up again during Django Unchained. I can do without the sadism. I don’t need to see a man being torn apart by dogs. It is enough for me if this cruelty is suggested. Tarantino films are almost always way too long. And too talky. And every character in it speaks like Quentin. But, and herein lies the great difference with the reprehensible Inglourious Basterds, I believe that Django Unchained has a clear moral centre. The sadism is inflicted by the bad guys, and is there to highlight the immorality of slavery.  It does help that the fantastic Christoph Waltz is this time one of the good guys. While Samuel L. Jackson, Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio all put in good performances, they are blown away by mr. Waltz.

The Big Fat Review will continue this weekend, with discussions of Silver Linings Playbook, Robot & Frank, Pitch Perfect, Arbitrage and Zero Dark Thirty.

The Movies of This Winter…

The Big’uns:

 Jack Reacher (dir. Christopher McQuarrie) stars Tom Cruise (oversized smurf) as a former military man who is described, in Lee Child’s novels about him, as a blonde giant of a man. Little that can go wrong there then. Wreck-it-Ralph (dir. Rich Moore) is a Disney feature about the bad guy in an arcade game, who decides that he does not want to be the bad guy anymore and sets out on a journey to other games. Very promising indeed, if only for the appearance of beloved characters from games that were played by people who were kids in the 1990s. Django Unchained will see Quentin Tarantino tastelessly screwing up (movie) history once more, now with the help of Jamie Foxx, Christopher Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio. Get your act together Quentin, and go make another Jackie Brown. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters could be real fun, or it could be the next Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. But it is directed by Norwegian horror prodigy Tommy Wirkola, and stars Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton, so the odds are reasonable. Finally, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey sees Peter Jackson (and everybody else involved in the LOTR madness) revisiting Middle Earth. I expect abolutely nothing from this mind-numbingly boring property, so I won’t be disappointed in any way. On the plus side: the 48 fps images look good in the trailer, and in Martin Freeman it does star a personal favourite of mine.

 

The Award Darlings

You’d think that a book about a boy and a tiger in a little boat would be unfilmable, but Ang Lee decided to give Life of Pi a chance. In 3D. Also considered unfilmable was David Mitchell’s book Cloud Atlas, but Andy and Lana Wachowski, together with Tom Tykwer, decided to give it a try. However good the film may turn out to be, it won’t win prizes. It’s too weird probably. Much more conventional is Hyde Park on Hudson (dir. Roger Michell), about president Roosevelt (Bill Murray gunning for a career Oscar) receiving the King and Queen of England as his guests. Speaking of American presidents: Steven Spielberg’s biopic Lincoln stars Daniel Day-Lewis, so Bill Murray may have to wait for his Oscar a little longer. Another biopic that may score big is Hitchcock (dir. Sacha Gervasi), starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. Already a favourite is Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest, the Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman starring The Master. Argo (dir. Ben Affleck) will be a contender, as will Les Miserables. The latest one is directed by Tom Hooper, who dug up quite some gold for The King’s Speech two years ago. And if the director is anything to go by, look out for Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. A new The Hurt Locker? We’ll have to wait and see.

Trailer Tuesday: Die, Despicable Lincoln Effects!

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

Half year report: Film in 2012

Top 5:

1 Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

2 The Muppets (James Bobin)

3 Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin)

4 Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson)

5 The Hunger Games (Gary Ross)

Flop 5:

5 Dark Shadows (Tim Burton)

4 On the Road (Walter Salles

3 Rock of Ages (Adam Shankman)

2 War Horse (Steven Spielberg)

1 John Carter (Andrew Stanton)

Little-known-movie-advice-Monday: Jules et Jim

“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:

Jules et Jim (François Truffaut, 1962)
The French Nouvelle Vague was basically a big f*** you to the established French film industry. Young rebellious critics who thought they could do a better job than the hacks working in ‘daddy’s cinema’. Inspired by Italian Neorealism and American B-films, and mentored by Cahiers du Cinema founder André Bazin the likes of Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut, Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol started making their own films.

Godard and Truffaut were to become the most famous of the Nouvelle Vague filmmakers. Godard had his big breakthrough with A Bout de Souffle, and Truffaut with Les 400 Coups. The Nouvelle Vague films are characterized by existential themes, strong narratives and attention to individuals. They inspired similar movements in Germany, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, as well as the ‘movie brat’ generation of New Hollywood (Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg…) But unlike so many other artistic ‘vogues’ the Nouvelle Vague did not die out. Truffaut continued making films until his death in 1984. Godard is still active.

The difference between the two is vast, though. Godard is the loud, by now obnoxiously so, voice of the generation. An old hippy still giving conventional cinema the middle finger, for instance with last year’s dreadfully unintelligible Film Socialisme. If his early films were a bit ‘meta’ (like Le Mépris, a film about a failed attempt at filming the Odyssey), his later work is at best ‘out there’.

But if Godard is the voice of the Nouvelle Vague, Truffaut is its whisper. A more careful and sophisticated critic and theorist, and a far more personal and committed filmmaker. Godard loves cinema. And himself. Truffaut loved movies. Godard had Fritz Lang play himself in Le Mépris; Truffaut acted in an important role in Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

In 1973, Godard accused Truffaut of making a movie that was a “lie,” and Truffaut replied with a 20-page letter in which he accused Godard of being a radical-chic hypocrite, a man who believed everyone to be “equal” in theory only. The two never saw each other again.

Les 400 Coups is arguably Truffaut best known work, mostly because of the famous freeze frame on which the film ends. But his masterpiece, in my opinion, is the gorgeous Jules et Jim. A story about a love triangle between two best friends (one Austrian and one French) and a passionate woman played by Jeanne Moreau. A wonderful film, from the heart, but with a gut-wrenching climax. Not only the most important film of Truffaut, in my opinion, but of the entire French Nouvelle Vague.

Order here (and no, I’m not getting paid by Amazon, just so you know).

Spielberg, Tintin and the proper use of 3D?

Well, this is something I did not see coming: I was watching The Adventures of Tintin, on my television, in 2D, and I missed the 3^rd dimension. This does not mean that 3D is perfectly fine after all, or that it is the future of cinema, but it does suggest to me something different, that I had not realized before. I argued previously for a specific cinematic use of 3D that was narratologically justified.

When I saw Tintin in 3D in the cinema I did not have the feeling that it employed such a use of 3D, even though I did think that the film was visually arresting and innovative. But especially those elements that were innovative – all those reflections, transformations and cuts-without-cutting – were considerably less effective in 2D. Spielberg may have been onto something!

Of course the pointing of swords and other long-shaped things in the direction of the audience did not work either, but these effects are just standard and boring anyway.

Has Spielberg figured out how to use 3D in a narratologically useful way? I think he has at least made a start with developing a proper 3D style. What do you think? Don’t hesitate to let me now!

Oscar’s logic: things to consider…

Tonight are the Oscars awarded, in a big ceremony in the Kodak theatre in Los Angeles. So over the last week(s) many people have tried to predict who is going to win. But what do we need to consider? Three types of Oscar logic work kinda against each other this year:

Oscar logic number 1: there is almost always one big favourite. This year that favourite is Michel Hazanavicius’  almost-silent black-and-white film The Artist. Last year it was The King’s Speech. Crucially, this big favourite will win awards, in the wake of winning best picture, almost automatically. Best Director and Best Original (or adapted, depending on the film) Screenplay for instance. Or some technical awards that other films might be more deserving of. So there is a chance that The Artist, apart from winning Best Film, will also win Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Music, Best Art Direction, Best Costumes, Best Editing and best Cinematography. And of course Best Actor for Jean Dujardin and Best Supporting Actress for Berenice Bejo.

Oscar logic number 2: The industry has certain demands. You wouldn’t believe it, but Hollywood thinks it is in crisis. Because of the economical crisis everwhere else of course, and because of piracy. So box office success and industrial demands do influence the votes. If a film has hardly been seen by anyone, then kiss your chances goodbye. Sorry Glenn Close (nominated for Albert Nobbs), but that is the deal. As to industrial demands: In 2009-10, Avatar broke all kinds of box office records. So it won awards. Technical ones, mostly, but still. In a strange, counter-sentimental move against Avatar and 3D the important prizes of 2010 were won by the little-seen The Hurt Locker. But this year 3D must be proven a viable option for the future, now that legendary directors Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese have adopted the format. Since Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin was criminally neglected by the Academy, Scorsese’s Hugo may have a shot at some prizes, especially Editing and Cinematography.

Oscar logic number 3: On the wave of The Artist Dujardin and Bejo may win awards for their performances, but there are other factors to consider: Best Actor is a career prize. It usually goes to actors who have a long-standing reputation in Hollywood. To win, it has to be your time. Cue Jeff Bridges in 2010, Colin Firth in 2011 and now George Clooney in 2012. Or, very perhaps, Gary Oldman. In the supporting categories the Academy tends to reward eccentric, extravagant performances in socially ‘relevant’  films. So Mo’nique in 2010, for Precious, and Melissa Leo last year for The Fighter. And this year Octavia Spencer for The Help.

I do not know what will happen in Los Angeles tonight. But whatever the outcome, the three types of Oscar logic described above will play their parts.

Oscar logic number 4. Pixar wins Best Animated Film. Oh, wait, they are not nominated this year. ..

A Film to Love and Cherish – the The Descendants review

Point one: one thing we must immediately stop doing is acting surprised when we see George Clooney giving a good film performance. Yes, he started out in a weepy hospital-soap and became initially known for his good looks. But since he took the piss with that image in Robert Rodriguez’ From Dusk Till Dawn he has showcased acting talent and versatility. He can do comedies, action flicks, heist movies and political thrillers and dramas. He oozes movie star charisma, but is not averse to roles that undermine his carefully maintained image. And in recent years he has done a number of really well-judged character roles. In Up in the Air, The American and now in The Descendants he showed that he is a dramatic actor of the same quality as more ‘respectable’ actors of his generation, like Philip Seymour Hoffman and Sean Penn. The latter two already have their Oscars. It really is Clooney turn now, and his performance in The Descendants is a genuinely award-deserving turn. Step aside, Jean Dujardin, this is Clooney’s year.

Point two: It has taken Alexander Payne quite a while (Sideways came out in 2004), but the darling director of American indie cinema has delivered a film that is by far his best one to date. Fans of his earlier films, like Election, About Schmidt and the above mentioned Sideways may be a bit disappointed that the rough edges and cynicism of these critiques of American society are gone. But The Descendants has instead a heart and an emotional sincerity that I previously found lacking, or unconvincing, in Payne’s work. The spectacle and hype surrounding the other candidates for Best Film, Hugo and The Artist, may have drawn attention away from the incredible quality of The Descendants, but this is typically a film that people will continue to love and cherish over the years.

Point three: What a stroke of genius to have Hawaii as the location for this film. The story of The Descendants – estranged father has to rebuild the relationship with his daughter and re-evaluate his life as his wife lies in a coma – could arguably take place anywhere. But by choosing a place that has so seldom been seen in film as itself (Spielberg filmed Jurassic Park in Hawaii, but there it represented Costa Rica), and definitely has not been represented as a place where real lives take place (rather than as a holiday destination) Alexander Payne makes the place important. And he makes its difference to other American, more cinematically known, places such as LA or New York very important. Arguably, the story of The Descendants could take place anywhere. But it could only play out the way it does in this film in Hawaii. This previously un-cinematized location draws attention to those things about the story and the characters that are universal, and those aspects that are particular.

Point four: the film is not perfect. It starts of with a very ‘indie’ voice-over by George Clooney, which later does not return. It seems as if Payne started out making ‘just another’ independent film and then found out that The Descendants could be more than that, and was self-supporting, classical, enough to work without the vice-over. The film, which ahs a very reasonable running time of 115 minutes, drags a bit in the middle, when Clooney’s character Matt King takes his daughters and a boyfriend on a road trip.

Point five (last point): All the attention to Clooney’s performance, and all the fuss about it (which, as I argue above, is really no longer justified), and all the talk about Hawaii (which is an interesting discussion topic) draw attention away from some of the other, really good performances, most notably by Shailene Woodley, Matthew Lillard and Beau Bridges. The Descendants works really well as an ensemble piece too.

If Only It Weren’t About a Horse – the War Horse review

Let us get the obvious out of the way. This film is not for me. And it is not meant to be for me. I am a fan of the work of Steven Spielberg, but he did not make this film to please me. He made it for kids, and for the parents who need to take the kids to the cinema. War Horse is a family film. That is okay. That does not need to be an obstacle for me to like this film. I enjoy the occasional family flick. The problem, for me, is that this is a family film about animals. Now, with all the good will in the world, I just do not have any interest in animals. Call me a cold-hearted bastard, but I have no empathy for and cannot identify with a horse.

And that is a problem if you are watching War Horse. For this is the story of a horse, experiencing a war (in this case World War I). The horse is the central protagonist. Everyone around him is merely support. The sweet young boy who raises him, back in England; the brave lieutenant who takes the horse, called Joey, to France; the German deserters who flee on his back; the little French girl who finds him; the German horse master who cares for him as he is forced to pull cannons; the British and the German soldiers who cut him out of the barb wire in No Man’s Land…

This is as much of a plot description that could possibly be given. War Horse is based on a children’s novel by Michael Morpurgo, which – and I must admit I haven’t read it – must be quite episodic if Spielberg’s film is a truthful adaptation.

Now, I do not mind episodic films. But I do need to have something to guide me through the episodes, someone to take me along. And the horse just doesn’t do that for me. Morpurgo told his entire story from the perspective of the horse. Crucially, Spielberg does not anthropomorphize the horse nearly as much. A voice-over could have worked miracles here. In the film the horse is a prop, not a character. Whenever the horse is envisioned as a character, as someone who is aware of himself and makes conscious choices, the effect in the film is forced and unnatural. I am furious whenever the horse wanders of or is taken elsewhere, and all these colorful characters around him simply disappear, in most cases never to be heard of again. I want to know more about them!

War Horse is also a very sentimental film. Now, I don’t mind sentiment (it really feels as if I am starting to repeat myself here), but if the sentiment involves the reunion of a horse I don’t care about and a boy I haven’t heard of in the past hour of the film, then sod it. I start paying attention to the ponderous and schmaltzy musical score by regular Spielberg co-operator John Williams. The true master of the genre now overplays his hand with a score that does not support or guide the film, but takes it hostage.

True enough, the film is well acted by reliable character actors such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddlestone, David Thewlis, Emily Watson and Liam Cunningham, and by newcomer Jeremy Irvine. And the film also looks fantastic, credit to that other Spielberg collaborator, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski. The scene in which the horse bolts, runs through the German trenches and escapes into No Man’s Land is stunning, as is the big push by the British army.

But good actors and beautiful images cannot save a film if you simply couldn’t care less about its central character.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to Dutch actor Robert de Hoog’s supposed role in this film? He isn’t even credited anymore….

The Top Ten Best Films of 2011

Disclaimer: due to the usually late release dates of film in The Netherlands I have not yet seen some films that have already had their US/UK releases (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, The Muppets). For the same reason some films are for me part of 2011 despite their first release in 2010 (True Grit, Black Swan). Finally there is one film I really wanted to see but did not get around to: Nicholas Winding Refn’s Drive. I will pick it up on DVD or Bluray and get back in touch about it.

10 Tree of Life

Who would have though that a Terence Malick film, besides ethereal whispers and meditations on the meaning of (a) life, could feature dinosaurs? Brilliant!

9 The Adventures of Tintin

Another film in which the plot did not matter ebcause the visuals were so beautiful. Spielberg explored the possibilities of animation, motion capture and 3D and comes up with some of the most captivating action sequences and original transitions of the year.

8 Contagion

A film that literally gives you the creeps. I was scared to sneeze, to touch my face, to touch objects in public places. Well, for an hour or so at least. Soderbergh manages again, after Traffic, to mix topicality with suspense and entertainment.

7 Bridesmaids

I called it the best comedy of the year, and Bridesmaids is the ultimate proof that, despite the inevitable toilet humor, American comedy is still very much alive. Also: despite the involvement of non-funny-man Judd Apatow.

6 Source Code

The 2011 heir of Inception. A smart intelligent action sci-fi flick that only revealed its plot priblems upon retrospection, never during the movie itself. And upon finally seeing Duncan Jones’ previous film Moon (2009) one could argue that Inception is the heir of Moon…

5 Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Based on the Jasper’s Take Award winning trailer my expectations were perhaps set too high, and my disappointment inevitable. But Thomas Alfredson delivers a moody, beautifully designed and shot thriller with outstanding performances accross the board.

4 True Grit

The best thing about True Grit is that it is not a typical Coen brothers film. It is first and foremost a gripping western and a great adaptation of the Charles Portis novel. The directorial peculiarities are restricted to the details, which is nice after the essential Coen film that was A Serious Man.

3 Carnage

I called it the best comedy of the year. Polanski does Sartre, but with laughs. And the old master is getting a bit sentimental in his old days, considering the last shot. Furthermore Carnage had the best ensemble performance of the year.

2 Black Swan

A film that touched me, literally, physically. I could not get up at first when the ending credits started to roll. Aronofsky may not be for everyone, but for me he is the most consistently overwhelming filmmaker of the last two decades

1 The Artist

It’s not original to think this is the film of the year, but it is. Especially for me, as I am closely studying both silent film and its musical accompaniment, and the aesthetic changes brought about by the introduction of sound. A film that forms a perfect tripple bill with Singing in the Rain and Sunset Boulevard. A feelgood film, a romantic adventure and a modern classic of the postmodern age, but without an ironic tone. The best film of 2011 was without a single doubt Michel Hazanavicus’ The Artist.