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.

Tyrannosaur

Wow. This film is one of the ugliest and saddest films I have ever seen. It is uncomfortable, hard to sit through and very, very depressing. But it is also one the best films I have seen. The cinematography is bleak and foreboding. The dialogue is harsh and full of swear words. And the characters are... well, let's just say they are some of the truest characters I have ever seen, with some of the best acing ever in any movie.

Now, this is not a pretty film. The story opens with Joseph (Peter Mullan) kicking his dog so hard that he kills it. And from there it gets worse. Joe meets a woman named Hannah (Olivia Colman), who works in a charity  shop, and slowly they begin a rocky friendship. I don't want to spoil the film, though if you see the trailer you have some idea, but what I will say is that Hannah is married to and aggressive and aggresive man. If you want more clues, watch the trailer.

This tragedy is one of the saddest films I have seen in a long while. I'm not joking when I say I wasin tears from the very beginning. But I found myself crying during the happier scenes, because the film builds such a sense of melancholy that you know whatever happy scenes there are you know they won't last long.

In terms of acting, I cannot believe that it took so long for people to give Olivia Colman a leading role in a film. Her acting here so perfectly captured the pain that Hannah feels, and the reluctant acceptance she has in a loveless and abused life.  For those who only know Colman from comedy roles, like Hot Fuzz and Peep Show, the depth she show in this dramatic turn may shock. In this film she is a woman on the edge, driven crazy by her abusive husband. Peter Mullan is also amazing as a man unable to deal with his grief and guilt and anger, who just seems to be waiting for his life to end on a downward spiral.

When these two characters meet, it is understanding and kindness that Hannah gives Joeseph. But as the film goes on these roles become reveresed as Hannah becomes more dependent on Joe. Remember when I said that these were some of the truest characters? Well, by that I mean that these characters are some of the most human characters to be portrayed on film. Neither of these characters are perfect, or even good people. They both have bad qualities and good. But you feel sympthatic, and in most cases empathetic, towards them because you realise that they are good people who just have trouble hiding their flaws and finding someone to connect with, and are mostly trying to survive each day.

One interesting and unique thing that the film does is  the way it presents Christianity. Most Christians in films are portrayed as pious and overbearing. But Hannah, the Christian in this film, is kind and helpful, and looks out for others, possibly more so than herself. But as the film progresses, we see that she is struggling to remain true to her faith, and it becomes clear that she uses her faith as a mask to try and find comfort from the things that happen to her.

The only thing bad I have to say about the film is the ending. Tyrannosaur was originally a short film that got expanded, and the thing about short films is that they tend to end rather ambiguously because of their length. Now, I haven't seen the short film, but if I just say that the full-length film doesn't end so ambiguously, you should be able to fill in the blanks. I found that I had the same disappointment from the explained endings of some of the horror films I've seen. But in all honesty, the film couldn't have ended any other way.

Will I explain the symbolic and cryptic title? No, not the whole way. What you do need to know, is that the Tyrannosaur is not who you think it is, and you should be able to figure it out all yourself. I strongly urge everyone to try to see this film if they can. It's not for everyone, but hopefully there is something for you connect with. I'll say it again that is is not a nice film. It is incredibly bleak, and quite violent and intense. But it is heartwarming and will remain in your head long after you've seen it.

Shame (actual review)

 

In all honesty, I wasn't surprised that this film was on the list for the course. It's one of the biggest artsy films out at the moment, and it is laced with symbolism, metaphor and those long lingering camera shots from a shaky cam that people have to come to love so much. The plot of the film is not that important. It's more a character study of Michael Fassbender's character Brandon, and his sexual ... urges. Yeah, this film is rated R for a reason. Within the first ten minutes you are greeted with a naked Michael Fassbender. And I mean naked. 

But as I say, this is a detailed character study of a man who seems disgusted by what he does yet can't help but do it anyway. He shares a love/hate relationship with his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), and it is when Sissy reappears in his life that the plot takes over. Their relationship is the centre of the film, and it is left ambiguous as to what their past relatioship was like. We don't get much back story whatsoever, it is all left behind doors that are only left half open. The siblings' relatioship is also quite ambiguous as to whether there is anything sexual between them.

The film portrays Brandon like a man with a disease that he is trying to overcome through the course of the film. We don't see him 'enjoying' having sex or masturbating (except from the obvious 'sexual enjoyment' we all get ;) ), to him it just seems like a chore almost. The films whole view of sex left a little confused at times. It was condemning Brandon for having casual sex instead of having long term relationships, and yet doesn't question Sissy's life. This might be because the film is from Brandon's perspective and that, while Sissy has serious issues, she is more accepting of her lifestyle. The whole film goes back to the character of Brandon, and how he can't accept who he is. 

When he does try to have a more meaningful relationship, he is unable to go through with it, which seems to say that he is unable of understanding and committing to love. Indeed, his relationship with his sister seems to support this fact. While he loves her, he can't stand to be around her because she reminds him of himself, and his own 'shame'. And yet while he harbours this great shame at what he does, hiding it away from his public life and acting almost prudish (one example is when he changes his sheets after his sister has sex in his bed), she is mostly fine with the life she lives, what Sissy really wants is the love from her brother that he refuses to give her. Sissy is a tragic character, and when she does try to reach out to her brother, he finds himself repulsed by her and to a greater extent himself. 

This film also deals with double identity, and how appearances can be deceptive. Brandon's boss and work colleagues have little to no idea about the sorts of things he gets up to in his spare time, and are almost shocked to think of him being a sex addict. There are moments throughout the film when we see that he is a pretty decent guy. He harbours this great problem inside himself, like someone with a drug or alcohol addiction, and it is with the arrival of his sister that this resentment for what he does finally opens up in a frenetic climax.

The acting is exceptional, with both leads working off each other and giving incredibly moving performances. This is a film that uses looks more than dialogue. In one of the best scenes in the movie, Carey Mulligan 'sings' a sparse and discordant version of 'New York New York', with Michael Fassbender looking on. The scene is just made up of close ups of their faces, but the emotions they betray makes it the most moving scene in the film. In fact, if Carey Mulligan is mouthing it, then it makes it an even more incredible performance. To be able to perform so perfectly such a moving piece without actually performing it is an amazing feat. Michael Fassbender also gives a masterful performance, and by the end, he seems to have visibly aged fromt the events in the film. 

Tech wise, the lighting and music is perfect, highlighting the emotions of the scene and creating a hostile atmosphere for the characters to interact in, and the music especially fits seemlessly into the scene. Most of the sets are white, or with bland colouring, giving a stark hospital-like quality. The shaky cam is used here, but it is used in a more natural way (as opposed to the rushed usuage in J. Edggar) and it enhances the understated performances.

There is a lot of sex, and quite a bit a lot of nakedness, but if you ca survive that (and are at least 18) then it is a good film to see. Don't be too put off by the R rating, but I would advise most to waituntil they are older to see the film. I felt my immaturity coming into some scenes, and there are some very uncomfortable moment. But all in all, it's a beautifully tragic film with outstanding acting and will leave you pondering it ages after.