Broken

Why is there always an independent British that will undoutedly make me cry? Last year it was Tyrannosaur, and this year it's this hidden gem, that apparently debuted at Cannes last year, but of course this being Australia it didn't come out here until this year in May. And because of university interrupting my life, I didn't get to see it until this weekend, so it might be dying down in terms of cinema screenings, but it's still on at Nova quite a few times, in case anyone actually wants to go see it after reading this. And you should. Like Tyrannosaur, this film has incredible emotion. Unlike Tyrannosaur, it's not as dark as you think it will be. But first, a summary.

Skunk (Eloise Laurence, in her movie debut) is an eleven year old diabetic who lives with her brother, Jed (Bill Milner), and her dad Archie (Tim Roth) in a normal British suburb. One day, Skunk shockingly watches as one of her neighbours, Rick (Robert Emms), who lives with his parents, is suddenly beaten up by another neighbour, Mr Oswald (Rory Kinnear), an agressive man with three daughters. This event triggers a downward spiral in Skunk's life, as she starts high school and is bullied, while her father begins a relationship with her au pair, Kasia (Zana Marjanovic). The stories of these three families all intertwine with each other, bringing together a tragic, yet strangely life affirming conclusion.

So, this is based on a 2008 book by Daniel Clay that was inspired by To Kill a Mockingbird. And yeah, there are similarities. Scout and Jem are phonetically similar(ish) to Skunk and Jed, Archie is also a lawyer like Atticus was, Skunk gets a boyfriend named Dylan, who serves as the Dill of this movie. There are other similarities, like Rick being the Boo Radley character, who is misunderstood and a little creepy, and I guess Cillian Murphy's character Mike could be the Tom Robinson, since he is inadvertently accused with getting one of Mr Owswald's daughters pregnant. But one shouldn't base how good a film is on how well it adapts something, one should review the film as an entity in it's own right. Which is what I'm going to do now. I may come back one day and talk about how it kinda works as an adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, but right now, let's just focus on Broken.

Eloise Laurence is going to go far. For her first film, she manages to hold everything together, and creates a likeable, cheeky and realistic character in Skunk. Also, the connection between her and Tim Roth is so believable. The scenes just between these two were the highlights of the film. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them, only about 3 in total. But that complaint turns into a compliment because the film expertly paced. It's very plot driven, with each character given enough time to forward the plot. Yet, there are some quiet character moments as well, like the little scenes between Skunk and her dad. And while I would love to see more of those scenes, they would probably make the film drag.

 
Broken only lasts 90 minutes, but it is quite slow. However, that isn't a bad thing. Slow is quickly becoming a compliment for films among the arthouse scene, and as I said earlier, the pacing is perfect. It feels like it's just a character study, yet on reflection all the little incidents that happen all contribute to driving the actions of the character, and direct the plot forward So, while some may think that it is rather plotless and slow, for me it just shows that the film uses good story-telling to create a non-formulaic coming-of-age drama.

The acting is also really excellent. I know I kinda got talking about Eloise Laurence then got distracted by the pacing, but let's get back on track. Tim Roth is excellent, and it is nice to see him in a meatier role than the extended cameo he had in Arbitrage last year. Cillian Murphy is also good, but in a more supporting role than the advertising suggests. Rory Kinnear is scary good, and you really feel like he is an out of control man who cannot cope with the grief of losing his wife and the responsibility of raising three out of control daughters. Robert Emms is also quite chilling, portraying a man who is very mentally disturbed, and whenever he's on screen you just think that something is going to go wrong. Which it does. Whoops, spoilers.

So, the story is a little predictable and quite depressing, but there is a liveliness to it, that comes from both Eloise Laurence, and some of the techniques that they use at times. Towards the end, it goes a little dreamlike (for reasons I will not divulge), and there is some symbolism that is very ambiguous. It could mean the passing of childhood into ... teenage hood? Or it could simply be leaving the past behind you and looking forward into the future. I think it's more the former, a long-winded way to tell the audience that our main character is growing up.

Another thing that happens a lot is that the filmmakers will show the end result of a scene before showing the events leading up to what actually happened. The most obvious (and the one with the least amount of spoilers) is at the beginning, when Mr Oswald attacks Rick for no reason that the audience has been given yet. After the attack, we flashback to see what aggrevated him to start beating Rick up, and no, I'm not going to tell you what it was. If you want to find out, go see it for yourself. This trick is repeated a couple more times to the point that the novelty of it wears off a bit. But it's still interesting and refreshing to see a different approach to the show don't tell rule.

I don't really want to say anything else because a lot of the joy found in the film comes from not knowing that much about it. Usually, I hate trailers that don't tell me what goes on in the film because they frustrate me, but I am thankful for this one. I will say that it did make me cry, well, the ending did. And even now that it's been a couple of days since I've seen it, thinking about it still makes me cry. This film is so breathtakingly refreshing, not only for the new story-telling techniques it uses, but it takes a genre that has been stretched in every way possible, the coming of age genre, and gives it a new life, even if it does take inspiration from an old favourite. Female orientated coming of age stories are so rare, and generally focuses on teenage girls rather than pre-pubescent, so I am really pleased that this is as good as it is. If you are interested, I can't recommend it enough. Until next time, readers.

Mediocre Movies: A Bunch of Amateurs

What can I say about Burt Reynolds? Well... he wasn't always an actor, and didn't really see himself as an actor, even though he had acted through college and was a part of the Hyde Park Playhouse summer stock theatre in New York. Umm, what else? He tried to audition for Sayonara, but was told he looked too much like Marlon Brando. Er... his first film was Angel Baby in 1961... and he was in Smokey and the Bandit... and Striptease... In fact, he was terrible in Striptease. His character is one of the worst written screen characters ever, and Reynolds playing him just made it all the more  excruciating. And because of that character, for a while I couldn't stand the man. Until I saw this movie, and my mind was changed. And after a while I saw Boogie Nights, and now I can kinda see the appeal. Kinda.

Reynolds' stars as aging action star Jefferson Steele, who is quickly coming to the end of his career. With no offers from any major film companies, he goes to England on the advice of his agent to star in what he thinks is a professional production of Shakespeare's King Lear, in Stratford-upon-Avon. When he arrives, however, it turns out that the production is done by an amateur acting group, being led by the firm but understanding Dorothy (Samantha Bond), in Stratford St. John. After many misinterpretations and fights with the other members of the group, Jefferson begins to get along with everybody, and starts to become more humble as he stumbles his way through  Shakespeare. Also starring is Imelda Staunton as the put-upon Mary, Derek Jacobi as the pompous Nigel and Camilla Arfwedson as Jefferson's daughter Amanda, who is also trying to break into acting.

Burt Reynolds and Shakespeare aren't two things that you would necessarily think go together, but Reynolds is actually pretty good. And even though in the beginning he is incredibly annoying, he goes through a definite change that makes the character endearing by the end. The English amateur actors are all good, but the main three, Bond, Staunton and Jacobi, steal the show. Bond's Dorothy is a no-bullshit single mum, yet she isn't austere, and there is a genuine connection between her and Jefferson, but thankfully not a fully fledged romance. Jacobi is in his element, quoting Shakespeare at random throughout, thinking he is abovethe rest and generally being stereotypically as British as he can be. But it's Imelda Staunton who steals the film as Mary, a woman who has a fangirl crush on Jefferson yet is frustrated by his rudeness, creating a bittersweet mix of wanting to please yet also wanting to kick someone in the balls.

A Bunch of Amateurs is also innovative in the way it uses the plot King Lear as a background for some of the action. There is a mad scene on the hill in this, which in all honesty is one of the best parts, and the only real part where Reynolds moves out of his comfort zone. While there are more subtle references to the source material, such as the women in the village becoming frustrated at trying to serve all of Jefferson's crazy whims, the biggest connection is through Jefferson's rocky relationship with his daughter. Not wanting to rely on her fathers falling clout, she tries to make it on her own. When that fails she realises that he was trying to protect her, though albeit in the worst way possible. The relationship is played very believably, even though the actors themselves only share about two scenes together, they are able to both convey the frustration they feel towards each other. But while the characters in this are exceptional, the plot isn't so.

The comedy relies on a lot of cliches from the 'fish-out-of-water' genre, and the 'up-himself-person-must-learn-humility-to-acheive-enlightenment' genre. For example, on the plane to England, Jefferson thinks one of the stewardesses wants his autograph, when in actual fact she wants his signature for the bill. Totally haven't seen that one before in a thousand other movies! And then of course, he complains about the weather, the size of the room, the food, the beer, the locals... pretty much everything when he actually arrives in Stratford St. John. All of this rehashed comedy makes the beginning of the movie feel very long and cringe-worthy, but the second half is a lot better. That's when it focuses more on the play rather than just Jefferson reacting to stuff.

So, is it mediocre? Well, I'd say no. It's an incredibly different film, especially from someone like Burt Reynolds, who might I add was 72 when this came out, and you can kinda see it in the way he walks and moves his hands. I think this is actually one of his best films, not as good as Deliverance and Boogie Nights, but it's up there. He made at the right time, and wasn't afraid to create a caricature of himself. While the cliched comedy can be annoying, there is some fresh stuff in there too which is genuinely hilarious, especially from Imelda Staunton.

Another reason why A Bunch of Amateurs isn't mediocre? The Queen saw the premier and then bought the DVD. That's right. The Queen of England likes this film! So, if that isn't a recomendation, then the only thing I can add is that it's probably the only movie you'll see where Derek Jacobi gets covered in shit. But seriously, this is one of those little British films that get swept under the blanket by the bigger Hollywood blockbusters (to be honest, most of the movies in this blog series will be), and if you like those sorts of movies, then you'll probably like this one. So, I'll probably have another blog up next week, since it is holidays. Unless, I decide to be lazy, which is a distinct possibility. Until next time, readers.