Mr Thompson at closing time
One of the best films I saw last year was Blindness based on the novel by Jose Saramago. I was intent on seeing this film even though the reviews had been iffy. I usually read reviews from three sources- The Sunday Times, The Guardian and The Independent. I dont tend to trust The Sunday Times as they tend to be sniffy and negative of just about everything released unless its some polished arthouse project but I like their reviews anyway. They gave the film a bad review as did The Independent. I did a quick run-through of reviews elsewhere and the reception was equally cold.
One running theme- apparently the film was too grim. Now this is true- its very grim and frequently disturbing. That said, that shouldnt be a criteria for hating a film if you are a film critic. You might not derive any joy from it, but calling it a bad film for being depressing is odd. We need films like this as much as we need Singing in the rain. Film- as with any other art form- shouldnt be afraid to tackle the unpleasant because people might get bothered about having their comfortable lives turned upside down for two hours. We need to venture to the other side and take a peek if only to remind ourselves of our humanity and the things we take for granted.
There seemed to be also an obsession with the morality or otherwise of the film. One critic- I think it was the guy from The Independent but Im too lazy to look it up- said he was appalled by the moral vision of the film which in turn inspired him to give it a thumbs down. Surely films are not supposed to conform to people's moral codes to be good? The critics' moral framework shouldnt really come into the picture. Some thought that characters wouldnt act like that in real-life but of course its completely feasible. If a group of people in a dystopian society are locked up in a facility, there is a very good chance that mayhem will ensue down the road especially where they are in uncharted waters (in this case, the fact that everyone bar the lead character is blind). The Lord of the Flies angle is a common one in film and at the end of the day, no critic can say for a fact that they know how things would pan out in real life if this kind situation presented itself. Its obviously unknowable, but the film is right to show that there is a near certainty that there will be some bad apples in such a situation. The eventual violence is distressing to watch, but its not implausible. If dozens of people suddenly struck down by blindness are locked up in a facility and cut off from the outside world, would everyone react with a zen-like calm? And what are the statistical chances that said group contains a few unpleasant characters? Quite high. Interestingly a lobby Group for the blind came out against the film claiming it was going to potray blind people in a bad light. (Cue jokes of 'But they havent seen it..') Thankfully no one was listening.
I was equally pissed off with Robert Hanks whose review of the TV show Spooks last year contained a sentence along the lines of 'Im repulsed by the worldview of the show.' Again, TV shouldnt have to conform to a critics' worldview- thats an incredibly lazy way of writing off what could be a great piece of Television. Plenty of brilliant TV Shows have a dodgy moral universe- The Sopranos and Dexter spring to mind- but that doesnt make them any less brilliant. Saying the shows are good isnt an endorsement of the moral codes of their characters.
My favourite film of last year was an Israeli animated war film called Waltz with Bashir. The film received nearly ecstatic reviews everywhere you looked but an article I was reading the other day made a passing mention of the film's 'questionable politics'. Presumably the fact that it was from the point of view from an Israeli soldier and some of his former army friends. But the story in that film has to be subjective- he's forgotten about a war he fought in as a young man(The Lebanon war)and he begins chasing his memories by talking to other soldiers who were there. Its not a treatise on the Middle-East conflict but just an aspect of it. For those who do crave a balance though, the end of the film does deliver. However films have to soar above politics to a certain extent otherwise you will have film makers sitting there trying feverishly to cover all bases and be as 'objective' as possible.
The storm over Kate Winslet's new film The Reader has also left me puzzled. It started off with an American reviwer who basically said it trivialized the Holocaust (Winslet plays a former Nazi guard who has an affair with a teenage boy years after the end of the Second World War.) I havent seen the film yet- its only just come out in the UK- but apparently there is a lot of sexually explicit material. The reviewer in question seemed outraged by the whole thing arguing something along the lines of 'all the nudity and sex belittle the subject matter'. It turns out Kate Winslet's naked body trivializes the Holocaust. Who knew?
Other reviewers were more sensible, but they too had misgivings about the film. A lot of it boiled down to the fact that we were watching a Nazi in an ordinary setting doing ordinary things (Except for the whole 'sleeping with a teenager'bit). It seems a film where Nazis arent shooting or gassing someone every five minutes isnt really a Holocaust film. Presumably to compensate for the fact that it was set in the fifties, the Director should have had Kate Winslet open the film by strangling kittens and bathing in their blood.
Like I said, I havent seen the film but still some of these reviews seem ridiculously petty. Winslet's character might have been evil, but there is nothing wrong with setting a story which covers a subsequent period of her life. Some critics seem woried that all the banality of her everyday life creates sympathy for the character (or that her body is being used to make us warm to her- as if the Director's pitch was 'I know how we can humanize a Nazi- lets get her naked!')I read an interview with the Director recently and he said- quite rightly- that there are hundreds of films dealing with the Holocaust and there should be space for his. I may hate this film when I watch it, but it wont be because of this kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
My top 10 list-in order- of 2008 Films
1. Waltz with Bashir: I saw this in mid-November and I was blown away. Dream-like, surreal, moving and violent, its a masterpiece and hands-down the best film I saw last year. Considering the fact that its an Israeli anmiated war film, I was suprised it got a general release. It was showing at the Oden Cinema here in Manchester for weeks.
2. The Mist: Based on a Stephen King novella, the mist is not just terrifying- and boy is it seriously terrifying- its also extremely disturbing. The end especially will upset the majority of the people who watch it, but its a masterpiece of horror. The film cleverly sets up a dual sense of terror- not only the vast array of scary creatures in the mist, but the evangelical lady whose rabble-rousing speeches become more chilling as the film goes on and culminates in some very distressing scenes. You wont forget the film in a hurry.
3. The Dark Knight: I was pretty sure the film wouldnt live up to the hype, but I was wrong. Its intelligent, dark and much, much better than the ridiculously overrated Batman Begins. It also benefits from having an anarchic villain who is unburdened by any ultimate goals except chaos and destruction. Its a bit of a bladder-challenging experience- it felt like 5 hours- but its a triumph even though Batman is effectively a supporting character most of the time. I didnt buy the ending though- Batman as a Jesus-figure seemed overblown and if they keep going down that path, they are in danger of making us forget he's a human being not a Saint. Three films down the line, they'll be leading him down Gotham on a donkey.
4. The Spiderwick Chronicles: I already praised this film in a previous post so I wont go into it again, but this is an underrated gem.
5. Pineapple Express: This was the funniest film released in 2008. It swung from comedy to action and back again, but it nailed the characters and had plenty of comedy gold. I certainly choked on my drink during James Franco's 'Its like killing a Unicorn with a bomb' moment.
6. Wall-E: Pixar release great films with such regularity that we are in danger of taking them for granted. You certainly have to admire a cartoon where the chemistry and emotion between two robots is more convincing than the vast majority of romantic comedies. The film manages to wring heartbreak emotion from simple things like the way the two robots call each other (Wall-E's 'Eeeeva! is especially affecting) You do sense however, that Eva is out of Wall-E's league but kudos to the bastard for aiming high.
7. In Bruges: Blackly funny- Colin Farrel rages against being exiled to Bruges, has hilarious encounters with a midget, botches a suicide attempt and gets involved in a lot more shenanigans with a fellow assasin. The film then becomes a lot darker when Ralph Fiennes rolls into town. Great stuff.
8. Blindness: Like The Mist, its very disturbing and its grim all the way through but its a very good film. It starts with a chilling premise- a sudden epidemic of blindness in an unnamed city- and runs with it to very uncomfortable places.
9. Burn after reading: This one got plenty of mixed reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Im a big fan of the Coen brothers and this film captures their tone perfectly- a mix of anarchy, farce, casual violence and highbrow humour. The final scene is utterly brilliant.
10. The Bank job: Starts out like any other heist film, but then takes on a suprising and darker twist somewhere down the line. Its a very competent and likeable film.
One running theme- apparently the film was too grim. Now this is true- its very grim and frequently disturbing. That said, that shouldnt be a criteria for hating a film if you are a film critic. You might not derive any joy from it, but calling it a bad film for being depressing is odd. We need films like this as much as we need Singing in the rain. Film- as with any other art form- shouldnt be afraid to tackle the unpleasant because people might get bothered about having their comfortable lives turned upside down for two hours. We need to venture to the other side and take a peek if only to remind ourselves of our humanity and the things we take for granted.
There seemed to be also an obsession with the morality or otherwise of the film. One critic- I think it was the guy from The Independent but Im too lazy to look it up- said he was appalled by the moral vision of the film which in turn inspired him to give it a thumbs down. Surely films are not supposed to conform to people's moral codes to be good? The critics' moral framework shouldnt really come into the picture. Some thought that characters wouldnt act like that in real-life but of course its completely feasible. If a group of people in a dystopian society are locked up in a facility, there is a very good chance that mayhem will ensue down the road especially where they are in uncharted waters (in this case, the fact that everyone bar the lead character is blind). The Lord of the Flies angle is a common one in film and at the end of the day, no critic can say for a fact that they know how things would pan out in real life if this kind situation presented itself. Its obviously unknowable, but the film is right to show that there is a near certainty that there will be some bad apples in such a situation. The eventual violence is distressing to watch, but its not implausible. If dozens of people suddenly struck down by blindness are locked up in a facility and cut off from the outside world, would everyone react with a zen-like calm? And what are the statistical chances that said group contains a few unpleasant characters? Quite high. Interestingly a lobby Group for the blind came out against the film claiming it was going to potray blind people in a bad light. (Cue jokes of 'But they havent seen it..') Thankfully no one was listening.
I was equally pissed off with Robert Hanks whose review of the TV show Spooks last year contained a sentence along the lines of 'Im repulsed by the worldview of the show.' Again, TV shouldnt have to conform to a critics' worldview- thats an incredibly lazy way of writing off what could be a great piece of Television. Plenty of brilliant TV Shows have a dodgy moral universe- The Sopranos and Dexter spring to mind- but that doesnt make them any less brilliant. Saying the shows are good isnt an endorsement of the moral codes of their characters.
My favourite film of last year was an Israeli animated war film called Waltz with Bashir. The film received nearly ecstatic reviews everywhere you looked but an article I was reading the other day made a passing mention of the film's 'questionable politics'. Presumably the fact that it was from the point of view from an Israeli soldier and some of his former army friends. But the story in that film has to be subjective- he's forgotten about a war he fought in as a young man(The Lebanon war)and he begins chasing his memories by talking to other soldiers who were there. Its not a treatise on the Middle-East conflict but just an aspect of it. For those who do crave a balance though, the end of the film does deliver. However films have to soar above politics to a certain extent otherwise you will have film makers sitting there trying feverishly to cover all bases and be as 'objective' as possible.
The storm over Kate Winslet's new film The Reader has also left me puzzled. It started off with an American reviwer who basically said it trivialized the Holocaust (Winslet plays a former Nazi guard who has an affair with a teenage boy years after the end of the Second World War.) I havent seen the film yet- its only just come out in the UK- but apparently there is a lot of sexually explicit material. The reviewer in question seemed outraged by the whole thing arguing something along the lines of 'all the nudity and sex belittle the subject matter'. It turns out Kate Winslet's naked body trivializes the Holocaust. Who knew?
Other reviewers were more sensible, but they too had misgivings about the film. A lot of it boiled down to the fact that we were watching a Nazi in an ordinary setting doing ordinary things (Except for the whole 'sleeping with a teenager'bit). It seems a film where Nazis arent shooting or gassing someone every five minutes isnt really a Holocaust film. Presumably to compensate for the fact that it was set in the fifties, the Director should have had Kate Winslet open the film by strangling kittens and bathing in their blood.
Like I said, I havent seen the film but still some of these reviews seem ridiculously petty. Winslet's character might have been evil, but there is nothing wrong with setting a story which covers a subsequent period of her life. Some critics seem woried that all the banality of her everyday life creates sympathy for the character (or that her body is being used to make us warm to her- as if the Director's pitch was 'I know how we can humanize a Nazi- lets get her naked!')I read an interview with the Director recently and he said- quite rightly- that there are hundreds of films dealing with the Holocaust and there should be space for his. I may hate this film when I watch it, but it wont be because of this kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
My top 10 list-in order- of 2008 Films
1. Waltz with Bashir: I saw this in mid-November and I was blown away. Dream-like, surreal, moving and violent, its a masterpiece and hands-down the best film I saw last year. Considering the fact that its an Israeli anmiated war film, I was suprised it got a general release. It was showing at the Oden Cinema here in Manchester for weeks.
2. The Mist: Based on a Stephen King novella, the mist is not just terrifying- and boy is it seriously terrifying- its also extremely disturbing. The end especially will upset the majority of the people who watch it, but its a masterpiece of horror. The film cleverly sets up a dual sense of terror- not only the vast array of scary creatures in the mist, but the evangelical lady whose rabble-rousing speeches become more chilling as the film goes on and culminates in some very distressing scenes. You wont forget the film in a hurry.
3. The Dark Knight: I was pretty sure the film wouldnt live up to the hype, but I was wrong. Its intelligent, dark and much, much better than the ridiculously overrated Batman Begins. It also benefits from having an anarchic villain who is unburdened by any ultimate goals except chaos and destruction. Its a bit of a bladder-challenging experience- it felt like 5 hours- but its a triumph even though Batman is effectively a supporting character most of the time. I didnt buy the ending though- Batman as a Jesus-figure seemed overblown and if they keep going down that path, they are in danger of making us forget he's a human being not a Saint. Three films down the line, they'll be leading him down Gotham on a donkey.
4. The Spiderwick Chronicles: I already praised this film in a previous post so I wont go into it again, but this is an underrated gem.
5. Pineapple Express: This was the funniest film released in 2008. It swung from comedy to action and back again, but it nailed the characters and had plenty of comedy gold. I certainly choked on my drink during James Franco's 'Its like killing a Unicorn with a bomb' moment.
6. Wall-E: Pixar release great films with such regularity that we are in danger of taking them for granted. You certainly have to admire a cartoon where the chemistry and emotion between two robots is more convincing than the vast majority of romantic comedies. The film manages to wring heartbreak emotion from simple things like the way the two robots call each other (Wall-E's 'Eeeeva! is especially affecting) You do sense however, that Eva is out of Wall-E's league but kudos to the bastard for aiming high.
7. In Bruges: Blackly funny- Colin Farrel rages against being exiled to Bruges, has hilarious encounters with a midget, botches a suicide attempt and gets involved in a lot more shenanigans with a fellow assasin. The film then becomes a lot darker when Ralph Fiennes rolls into town. Great stuff.
8. Blindness: Like The Mist, its very disturbing and its grim all the way through but its a very good film. It starts with a chilling premise- a sudden epidemic of blindness in an unnamed city- and runs with it to very uncomfortable places.
9. Burn after reading: This one got plenty of mixed reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Im a big fan of the Coen brothers and this film captures their tone perfectly- a mix of anarchy, farce, casual violence and highbrow humour. The final scene is utterly brilliant.
10. The Bank job: Starts out like any other heist film, but then takes on a suprising and darker twist somewhere down the line. Its a very competent and likeable film.
posted by Minzo at 10:14 AM
2 Comments:
I still do not get what's so great with Spiderwick Chronicles!
i liked Wall-E...kinda weird that they chose to take us down that road, emotional robots, but it was nice..in a strange way
Post a Comment
<< Home