Oz: The Less Than Great and Powerful

The year only just moved into April and here I am already having seen the worst film of the year (or so I seriously hope). Oz: The Great and Powerful is a film that has almost nothing going for and plenty going against, yet somewhat confusingly has managed to garner mediocre reviews from the public and critics alike that are far in excess of what this film deserves. Thankfully the other viewers in my cinema were not so forgiving, with about ¼ leaving before the film was over. I would have loved to have joined them, but figured I couldn’t fairly label this “The Worst Film of 2013 (probably)” if I didn’t sit through the whole thing.

There was a point about 20 minutes into this film where James Franco has landed in Oz, met Mila Kunis and the two begin their journey back to the Emerald City. They stop to camp overnight and I couldn’t help but think “surely Mila Kunis hasn’t been wandering in the wilderness for days. Why can’t they just go back to the city the way she came?” This was the point I lost my suspension of disbelief, and there was a lot more of the film to come.

This film has almost no plot to speak of. Because as far as I’m concerned a plot requires something to happen that advances the plot AND wasn’t obvious from the first frame of the film. Nothing that happens in this film fulfils both those criteria.

Among the many bafflingly stupid things that this film does, none is more so baffling to me than the way this film references the original Wizard of Oz movie. The start is in sepia which switches to colour when we enter Oz; Oz himself is transported by a twister; there’s a yellow brick road; references to scarecrows, tin men and lions; the list is endless. Clearly the film makers assume that we know and love the original film. Which is why it makes zero sense that they wait until the second half of the film to tell us that Glinda is actually a good guy. Seriously? That’s your big reveal? Anyone who has even the vaguest knowledge of the Wizard of Oz will have realised who was good and bad simply from looking at the posters. And yet the film treats this revelation like it’s a surprise.

Such a shame too that so many good actors do such terrible jobs with what they’re given in this film. Bad writing alone can’t explain this, there is some crappy acting at work here too. Michelle Williams is probably the best, but even she is left with a pretty one-dimensional character to work with. James Franco looks like he’s just doing it for the money. And Rachael Weisz and Mila Kunis are nothing short of embarrassing to watch on screen.

Dearest movie gods, I’ve already labelled this The Worst Film of 2013, please let this statement remain accurate. Firstly because I really don’t like being wrong, and secondly I don’t think my cinephile heart could take it to sit through another clunker like this one.

85th Academy Awards Tips

The Oscars are on in less than 24 hours now and I think it's time for me to accept that I've seen as many of the nominated films as I'm going to in time to make my predictions. Without any further ado...


Best Picture - Argo
It will be a tough one between Argo and Lincoln, but having already swept the SAGs and the BAFTAs the smart money is on Argo.

Best Director - Steven Spielberg
Best Director more often than not goes to the same winner as Best Picture, though if I'm right with Best Picture, that's not possible this year. Ben Affleck is not a surpising omission given how new he is to the directing scene, so the directing award will instead go to a stalwart of the industry. It will be Spielberg's compensation award.

Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis
A legend playing a legend, the Academy loves this stuff. Between Lincoln and Django Unchained I feel there's a bit of white guilt going around at the Oscars this year, and what better way to assuage it than give an acting gong to Abe Lincoln.

Best Actress - Jessica Chastain
Jennifer Lawrence might just surpise me with this one, but I think it's Chastain's year. Chastain's performance is easily the best thing about Zero Dark 30, she is compelling in a film that otherwise would have bored me a little. The same can't be said of Silver Linings, plus Jennifer Lawrence just might be too young - the Academy loves to award people for a lifetime's work, and Chastain is already on her 2nd nomination.

Best Supporting Actor - Phillip Seymour Hoffman 

Of all the acting categories, this year’s best supporting actor is the hardest to pick. That being said I pick Hoffman, not just because the Academy loves him, but also as a representative award for ensemble casting. The Master’s greatest strength as a film was the stunning performance of all three leads, not just Hoffman but also Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams. Though the best supporting actress and best actor awards seem pretty much sewn up, awarding Hoffman best supporting actor would give the film some of the acting kudos it deserves.

Best Supporting Actress - Anne Hathaway
She's won everything else and the Academy loves 'beautiful woman takes on ugly role'.

Best Adapted Screenplay - Argo

Possibly the hardest to pick of all the key categories. This one could easily go to any nominated, though I feel the toughest battle will be between Argo and Lincoln. I give it to Argo by the barest of margins to give greater justification to its Best Picture win.

Best Original Screenplay - Django Unchained

This is the only one of the big awards that Django has any chance of walking away with. Tarantino’s too controversial to ever win a Best Picture, but this award would recognise that he’s one of the best writers going around today. He consistently writes screenplays that are original, make strong reference to Hollywood’s past (which the Academy loves) and feature dialogue that never falters. Not to mention that as a writer, even when he doesn’t direct, he commands a real sense of auteurship.

Other awards that are virtual guarantees:
Best Foreign Film to Amour
Best Song for Adele

Hope you all enjoy your viewing tomorrow :)

2012: My Bests and Worsts

So a year of 2012 films comes to an end. I feel I must confess that with travels and all there was a bit of a lack of 2012 vintage films for me to choose from to make up these lists. Now that I’ve put them together it also seems that it was mostly mainstream Hollywood films I watched this year, or perhaps it was just that 2012 was a great year for Hollywood. Below are my picks for the best and worst films of the year. I hope you enjoyed (or derided) them as much as I did.

The Best (in no particular order)

Looper

An original screenplay is like an endangered species these days in a world of adaptations and sequels. A film that is not only original but also intelligent is such a rare beast it would be a crime not to make my best of list. The film doesn’t get bogged down in the specifics of time travel but instead simply uses it as a plot tool. Joseph Gordon Levitt (a man who can do no wrong IMO) does a fabulous job of being Bruce Willis. Bruce Willis does a pretty good job of being Bruce Willis too.

Argo

Like his previous outing The Town Ben Affleck shows us how great he can be behind the camera. In fact, he’s probably better behind it than in front of it. Argo does a remarkable job of keeping the audience on the edge of our seats and gripping the armrests in suspense when we already know exactly how the film ends. A solid supporting cast including Bryan Cranston, John Goodman and Alan Arkin provide enough star power without detracting from the story. My only complaint is that with all the big lapels, moustaches, glasses and hair I got a couple of the characters confused at times.

Prometheus

Firstly let’s be honest, it’s no Alien. Ellie is no Ripley and the team as a whole don’t play off each other as well as in the earlier film. But the film is gorgeously shot right from the opening scenes (filmed in my favourite country, Iceland) with a plot that nods enough to Alien while still doing enough to be a great film on its own terms. Ellie’s caesarean scene holds its place in my mind as the most horrifying and squirm-inducing depiction of childbirth since the early work of David Cronenberg. Loved it.

Skyfall

Bond is back and Skyfall is Craig’s best. I was never as much a fan of Casino Royale as others (no-one really seems to be a fan of Quantum of Solace); it all just seemed a bit like Bond was trying to be Jason Bourne. I don’t want endless brooding, shaky camera and shadowy organisations as villains. I want insane, deformed baddies and double entendres galore. Skyfall was the best of both worlds. While still staying true to the style of the earlier Craig films, this was a more traditional Bond. Bardem is one of the best Bond bad guys in years and the homoerotic undertones between Silva and Bond are entrancing. Also great is the debate throughout the film on the relevance of MI6 and spies like Bond in the modern era.

Cabin in the Woods

A film that divided audiences it seems, but one that I loved. Like Wes Craven’s Scream (one of my favourite films), it delved into why it is we like horror and what we want from it. It turned a lot of people off who felt cheated that this wasn’t a horror movie, but I feel that this mis-marketing was intentional. The ending of the film itself is a reflection of audience response at being denied what they paid to see. The film anticipated its own reception. That’s so Joss Whedon.

The Worst (from bad to worst)

Magic Mike

Let’s be honest, I pretty much only watched this film because I knew it would either make my best or worst for the year. Wow. This film is completely unexpected boring. There were far too many scenes in which there was no stripping. It also probably doesn’t help that neither Channing Tatum nor Matthew McConaughey are my type. Only one of the plot points is resolved – the one where Channing Tatum has a crush on the grumpiest woman alive – everything else is just forgotten about.

Savages

Way too long with leads that are uncharismatic at best (the two guys) and rage-inducing at worst (Blake Lively). Probably the worst use of voice-over I’ve ever heard. Blake Lively plays a woman who’s received a tertiary education but needs to look up the dictionary definition of “savage”. Also she compares her sex life with one of her boyfriends to his experiences in Afghanistan thusly “I had orgasms, he had wargasms”. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points typing that.

Piranha 3DD

Perhaps some will see this and wonder why I bothered, but I was a genuine fan of Piranha 3D. Sure, it was no Citizen Kane, but it perfectly blended senseless gore, lots of boobies and just enough story to keep you caring about the characters. The sequel however did not. Its sole redeeming feature was 2 original songs by David Hasselhoff. There was no story, or at least none that even made sense in its own universe. The characters were so forgettable I’m not entirely sure why they bothered naming them. Also, the trailer promised me double the Ds, and if anything there were less Ds….but possibly more vagina.

Here’s looking forward to a great year of film for 2013. I eagerly anticipate bests that are better and worsts that are more ludicrous.

The Hobbit: A Completely Expected Journey

I finish my viewing of The Hobbit Part 1 with totally mixed feelings. Chief among my disappointment however is that this is exactly the way I expected to feel following it. I wish that Peter Jackson had blown me away with a fantastic vision comparable to LOTR or left me outraged at his desecration of the text. Alas, to be somewhere in the middle, devoid of strong emotion is depressing.

Don’t get me wrong, on the whole The Hobbit was a viewing pleasure. Visually dazzling (and I only saw it in 2D, none of this 48FPS – I’m a traditionalist), amazing attention to detail with the art direction and costuming, an emotional and appropriate score (more on music later), and great performances from the leads. I had a few reservations about Martin Freeman as Bilbo but for me the guy nails it. The dwarves I admit were a little less impressive. Not so much in terms in terms of performance as character development. I know 13 is a large number of dwarves to create distinct characters for, but apart from a few they all seem to blend in to one another. You’ve got Thorin, the leader; Balin, the fatherly one; the fat one; then there’s one inexplicably good-looking one… he pretty much only has a 5 o’clock shadow compared to the other dwarves, he’s never shown using forced perspective (ie he’s never shown to look short and squat), he even fights with a bow and arrow rather than a traditional dwarf weapon like an axe or sword. It’s like Peter Jackson thought “we need a Aragorn/Legolas in this party”. It actually kind of distracts from the film he seems so out of place. The other 9 dwarves? I’ve kind of forgotten already.

Pictured: smouldering good looks not usually associated with the dwarf race

My number one complaint with the film is simply that it feels a little too much like LOTR: The Prequel. I appreciate the use of the same locations for places like The Shire and Rivendell, but other elements borrow too much from the previous films. The score, while spectacular, borrowed many themes from LOTR like it was trying to create the same emotions and perhaps recreate those films. I wish instead that Howard Shore had taken a chance and done something different with this one. I know it’s a little nit-picky, the score was really good, but it detracted from the film by making the audience constantly compare it to its predecessor. Perhaps too the film would have benefitted from a different director. I mourn the loss of Guillermo del Toro; whose vision I feel could only have altered this universe for the better and allowed The Hobbit to stand alone. With Peter Jackson at the helm An Unexpected Journey is just a little too expected.

Splitting the story into 3 films is another thing that I’m no less apprehensive about having seen the first one. I feel if they just stuck to the content of the book they could have made one great movie, but instead they’ve added a whole lot of extra content that doesn’t always gel. The best parts of the movie are undoubtedly the elements that come straight from the book. The scenes with Gollum are easily the highlight; Andy Serkis is a genius. The 3 parts also leaves me worried about what is to come in Part 2. I have no doubt it’s going to be another 3 hour long epic and I wouldn’t be surprised if the first 2 hours is a whole lotta wandering around Mirkwood. I seriously fear it might turn out a bit like Harry Potter and the Great Camping Trip (Deathly Hallows Part 1). At least with the title The Desolation of Smaug set in stone I’m guaranteed some dragon at the end. Part 1 was beautifully restrained with regards to Smaug. Jackson managed to show us a whole battle scene featuring Smaug while never showing us more than a claw or a tail. That anticipation for Smaug is the number one thing keeping me excited for Boxing Day this year.

The Dark Knight Rises

Alright alright, a little behind the times I admit, but I saw it as soon as I could. The plus side being there are far less people I’m being a spoiler for here. First things first I have to say, I was a little disappointed. Not at all that the film was bad, but when you’ve got a director like Christopher Nolan and it’s following on from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight the bar gets set pretty high. Anything less than the outright best film of the year would have disappointed me. However, the film certainly deserves some closer analysis, for while it might not have the blockbuster power of The Dark Knight the film deals with a lot of interesting themes and issues that arguably give it a greater emotional depth than its predecessor.

While watching the film I found one of the most interesting moments to be Jim Gordon’s recitation of the final passage of Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities at the funeral of Bruce Wayne. Though initially the choice of such a passage highlighted for me Batman’s self-sacrifice, the more I thought about the two stories the more in common I could find between them. Ideas of class struggle and revolution are rife throughout the film as are other references to the French Revolution. The people’s court in which guilt has already been assumed is reminiscent of the Reign of Terror in the later phase of the revolution where the word of one witness was enough for conviction. This too is crucial to the plot of A Tale of Two Cities, where Charles Darnay is reported on by Madame Defarge for being an aristocrat guilty of the crimes ascribed to his family name. Also familiar, one of Bane’s first acts once in charge of Gotham is to liberate the prison filled with criminals placed there by illegitimate laws based upon corruption (The Dent Act/Lettres de cachet). Storming of the Bastille anyone? There were less obvious visual motifs too. A minute on the internet too was enough to confirm my suspicions that French revolutionary jackets were the inspiration for Bane’s costume.

The theme of class conflict can most clearly be seen by comparing the philosophies of the terrorists in this film to Batman Begins. Though the plots in many ways mirror each other, in Batman Begins Ra’s Al Gul’s belief was that Gotham was beyond redemption and all were deserving of death. Bane and Tahlia instead appeal to the common citizen, placing blame solely upon the ruling elite and bureaucracy.  Interesting too is the way that the idea of citizenship, forged in the French Revolution through The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, is utilised in the film. Tahlia’s claim that she is not ordinary, but she is a citizen is used to legitimate the power she wields over Gotham and serves as a further point of departure from her father’s campaign on the city.

The theme of resurrection too is central to both texts. A Tale of Two Cities focuses on the physical resurrection of Dr. Manette following his incarceration in the Bastille as well as the spiritual resurrection of Sidney Carton at the point of his sacrifice. This is highlighted by Carton’s final thoughts regarding both a Paris reborn from the ashes of revolution and the great rest confronting him. The repetition of the phrase ‘recalled to life’ throughout the book emphasises this theme of resurrection. In Batman, the title itself, The Dark Knight Rises highlights the importance of the resurrection theme. Most obviously in the film we see Batman resurrect himself from self-imposed exile when he is recalled by Gotham. But more than this the film’s conclusion shows the resurrection of Bruce Wayne. At the film’s commencement a recluse unable to live his life due to the restriction of his guilt and unfinished business as Batman, the film’s final scene shows his resurrection (whether spiritually or literally) once he has destroyed the Batman.

The thematic similarities continue in the way that both stories deal with the morality of their aristocratic protagonists. Two Cities examines the level of guilt that can be ascribed to Charles Darnay for the crimes of his uncle against the peasantry. With The Dark Knight Rises we can discuss the extent to which the failure of the Wayne Corporation has influenced the financial situation facing Gotham, and in turn the responsibility that Bruce Wayne himself can be ascribed for the corruption that is oppressing Gotham’s poor. This is not to mention Batman’s role in Commissioner Gordon’s deceit of the people of Gotham. Despite their sympathy for the common person, both men too are forced to fake their own deaths (depending on your interpretation of Batman’s ending) and relinquish their names, and associated power and money, in order to be redeemed of the crimes done in their family names against the people.

While I’m sure the similarities don’t end there, for the purpose of a blog perhaps I’ve gone far enough. Enough at least to prove to myself (if not others) that The Dark Knight Rises really has no need to disappoint beyond the fact that it carries forward the name of its landmark predecessor.

Cinematic Adventures Around the World - Part 3: Berlin

Before I started my travels Germany generally wasn't a country I was looking forward to. Even Berlin, which has been one of my favourite cities to date, I only started getting excited for in the week leading up to my time there, and wasn't expecting to write a blog on it. The thing that struck me about Berlin initially was how the city's history was so visible. In Berlin I was staying right across from Alexanderplatz where the symbol of communist Berlin, the TV tower, stands. Chunks of the Berlin Wall too can be found all over the city. Berlin's achitecture blends classic, modern, communist and even the occasional Nazi-style building. My tour guide highlighted throughout the day that more so than almost any other city, Berlin hasn't shirked from its history, but has taken responsibility for it. The city abounds in memorials to victims of Nazicism, or those who died scaling the Berlin Wall. When thinking about this I realised it was present too in German filmmaking. Some of the most internationally successful German movies of the last decade are films such as Downfall, Goodbye Lenin!, and The Lives of Others; all of which explore difficult periods of Germany's past. As I took a visit to Berlin's Museum of Film and Television I realised that German film can always be seen to have reflected its history, more so than the film culture of other nations.

The early '20s saw the success of films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (incidentally, my favourite silent film) and FW Murnau's Nosferatu. Both significant films for the horror genre, the museum highlighted it was hardly surprising that such a genre should flourish in the years following the loss of WWI. As Germany moved into the modern age, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, a cautionary tale about modernity, gained international success and remains one of the most well-known films from that era. The early '30s were the era of Marlene Dietrich, both in German and American film. Dietrich herself was the symbol of Weimar Germany; liberal, confident and sexually ambiguous. Her defection to the US signalled the end of liberalism in German cinema, while the rise of directors such as Leni Riefenstahl ushered in a new era of cinema as propaganda. Riefenstahl's documentary style in particular, seen in films such as Triumph of the Will and Olympia, indicated a new seriousness in the German psyche. But beyond here unfortunately there is a yawning gap in my knowledge of German cinema. As far as I can tell, following WWII the German film industry remained quiet for about 30 years (I'm very happy to be corrected on this by someone who knows more than I do). But even if this is so, we can read a lack of prominent cinema as a reflection of German society too. It shows us a society consumed with its rebuilding and paralysed by its fracturing. Given the importance of cinematic propaganda to the Nazis we could also see the apparent abandonment of the film industry as a distancing of the country from this past.

Unfortunately, the Museum of Film did little to educate me on this topic. Organised chronologically, the museums exhibition of German cinema between the wars (including 3 whole rooms dedicated to Marlene Dietrich) was spectacular, but German cinema post-WWII is confined to only 2 rooms. Disappointing too was that the temporary exhibition (which seemed like a pretty cool exhibition on the figure of the hero) was only in German. There wasn't even much on the difference between East and West cinema - if much of one existed at all. I found this particularly strange given how much the division features in other areas of Berlin's culture. The only other real success of the museum was the architecture of the building itself, which seemed to reflect German history. Some parts with exposed and damaged brick walls; a reminder of the heavy bombing suffered in WWII, other parts floor to ceiling mirrors; representing the East/West division, others still modern steel and glass showcasing Germany's emergence as a European superpower. That such attention could be payed to the interior design, rather than on the exhibition post-1945 only reinforces my view that it's only recently that German cinema has regained international prominence, and that, still mindful of its damaging use in Nazicism, the content of German cinema today seeks to apologise and make sense of past atrocities.

To end with something a little more light-hearted, a clip from one of my favourite German films of the last decade. Enjoyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBhaXQ3UaDo

Cinematic Adventures Around the World - Part 2: New York

Oh New York. A city altogether more sophisticated with its relationship to cinema than Los Angeles. Not that the cities aren't without their similarities in their depictions on film. Most notably in the way they are both shown to be cities of extremes. LA with its glamorous movie stars and underlying racism, NYC as the world of Marty Scorsese's gangsters and loners against Woody Allen's neurotic, intellectual flanerie. Manhattan certainly seems to be divided along extreme lines, but in reality seemed to be full of more hipsters and homeless than the works of those two filmmakers would suggest.

The differences between LA and NY I found more in the cities' relationships to the film industry. While LA seems to focus more on the high concept side of cinema; blockbusters and stars, New York is more well-rounded in its acceptance of varying types of film. I was able to catch a couple of films at the TriBeCa Film Festival and at both screenings directors and writers showed up for Q&A sessions after. This seems to be pretty common for New York, but something I know to be a rare and special treat at film festivals in Australia. It seems to perpetuate the idea that New Yorkers are more intellectual than their West Coast counterparts. While people in the film industry block out commoners in LA with their high walls, CCTV cameras and security guards, in New York they will happily mingle with them. But perhaps this acceptance by the film industry of New Yorkers is the cause and not just the effect of their supposed filmic sophistication.

The Museum of the Moving Image in NY too seems to support their elitist film attitudes. I found no such museums in LA, instead only studio tours implicitly indication the city's preference for celebrating the producers rather than the artists. The studio tours seemed to place their focus on the major advancements in special effects of the last 20 years which, while spectacular, didn't really leave me feeling that I'd learned that much about cinema's history or future direction. The Museum of the Moving Image however focused on no aspect of cinema specifically; instead it featured a chronology of film, from its birth out of the vaudevillian entertainment scene to today. It showed advances in technology, like a display of movie cameras and projectors from the late 1800s to the middle of the 20th century, and sections on each stage of the filmmaking process, from sound editing to make-up to merchandising, highlighting the collaborative aspect of filmmaking. It also had temporary exhibits of installation and performance art utilising new media and showing the evolution of film as art. Overall it depicted a view of the moving image that was equal parts art and entertainment, unlike LAs studio tours which focus on the cinema of attractions; special effects and stars.

Yet despite this I can't say that I have an entirely positive view of film and New York. Though I really appreciated the filmmaker Q&As at TriBeCa, the majority of the questions asked of the makers were pretentious and featured long-winded explanations of the viewers personal interpretation of the film. The most pretentious receiving a round of applause from the other viewers. While it's true New York has a much better and broader film culture than LA, my gosh, don't they just know it?