Withnail and I is one of those films that you get told is "famous" yet have never heard of. It was made by the Beatle George Harrison's film company, "Handmade Films". No one speaks about George Harrison much any more.
This film was made in 1986 and set in 1969. The two characters are aspiring actors, but spend most of their time drinking and smoking. They live in a delapidated house in London, which they never bother to tidy up and have allowed to become infested by rats. Their effete arrogance does not go down well in the local pub. They have one friend named Danny, who must be the basis for the Peep Show character Super Hans: he sells drugs and attempts to make profound statements.
Once they run out of money, Withnail turns to his rich uncle Montey, who is just as effete and fond of acting as his nephew. Withnail and I (that's his name) secure the keys to Monty's cottage in the Lake District. These early scenes establish the characters well.
The least enjoyable part of the film comes when Withnail and I arrive in the Lake District. The scenes in which they interact with locals are uninteresting and could've been cut out without losing much of the story. The only laugh comes when I has to charge at a bull that has escaped from a field.
Things liven up when Monty arrives at the cottage unexpectedly one night; apparently he had a flat tire, but it's odd how he ended up hundreds of miles from his home. Our two heroes have mixed feelings about Monty's arrival: he is sensible enough to bring much-needed food and drink with him, but he is rather too interested in spending time with them, especially with I. It is hinted at and then revealed that Monty is gay. The film is set in an era when homosexuality was still a taboo, and some people spent their lives striving to change their sexuality. Monty emerges as the film's most likeable character in the confusion that abounds from various lies that Withnail and I tell, although he does hint at raping I before doing the right thing.
When Withnail and I return to London, there is a man (named Assuming Ed in the credits) in their bath and Danny has intervened disastrously in their tenancy agreement. The ending reveals that the film is not only a coming-of-age film for Withnail but an end-of-an-era film. Danny says that the best decade is about to end and "there are going to be a lot of refugees". I found this statement confusing: most people associate the 1960s with hippies and the Beatles rather than with alcoholic actors and repressed homosexuals.
I give this four stars. It is marked up for having memorable characters, erudite dialogue and a good ending (it's not often I say that). It's marked down because none of the characters is likeable, and I think that every film should have at least one likeable character. In addition, there are some poor scenes. The scene in which Withnail and I refuse to leave a cafe in Penrith was unconnected to the plot and did nothing except make you dislike the characters more. The scenes with the Cumbrian locals fall flat: they are neither funny nor important to the plot.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Jarhead
Jarhead is an unusual war film in that the only combat in it is amongst soldiers on the same side. It is set during the 1990-1 Gulf War, which was a one-sided affair and saw very little combat. The film follows a platoon of troops under the leadership of Sergeant Sykes. It illustrates the sort of things that affect a soldier on a daily basis when they're not fighting. One issue dwelt upon at length is the sexual frustration of being away from your partner and (in this case) from any women at all. The film alternates between jokes about wanking and more serious parts when soldiers receive malicious packages from their now-ex-girlfriends. The main character is Swoff, who is from a family of military men. He has a sensible head on his soldiers and does not appreciate the crazier aspect of army laddish culture. He is very worried that his girlfriend will cheat on him. The other main characters are Troy, who contrasts with Swoff in being eagar to engage in combat and kill somebody, and Fergus, who doesn't seem like the military sort and produces a lot of chaos when he falls asleep whilst his sausages are cooking.
The film does not have a clear political message. There is a politicised character in Kruger, but it is unclear whether the film's producers agree with him or not; he says at the outset that the war is all about protecting oil profits and he is the only one to refuse to sign a waiver of rights over untested drugs (allegedly to protect against Saddam's chemical weapons). The film is about the anti-climax for the soliders in the Gulf War (there must've been a similar anti-climax for soldiers in other wars, such as those who were sent to the Sudan during WWII and never fired a shot in anger). The soldiers become so frustrated that they read books about killing Arabs* and become furious when orders to shoot an enemy are rescinded. However, you get no indication from the film whether the writers and directors think the Gulf War was justified or not.
The film begins by telling you why each of the soldiers have joined, and ends by showing what happens to each after they leave the military (except Sergeant Sykes, who is shown in the Iraq War). I'm not sure whether this was deliberate or not, but I thought that this sent out the message that war does not necessarily scar you for life: some of them do come off badly after the Gulf War, but others are shown as happy and successful. James Meek has criticised the film for underplaying the horrors of war. I don't agree with him as there is a very significant scene where they discover a group of cars and carriages that have been bombed to cinders. Not many American troops died in the Gulf War, but plenty of people in Kuwait died in it. I think that wars in which fewer of our own troops die are forgotten more quickly. Kosovo was only 12 years ago, yet who speaks of that now?
I'm giving this 4 stars; it's not memorable enough to get 5. This is a film aimed at portrayed boredom and anti-climax: it does that well, but there's just no way of making 5-star entertainment out of boredom and anti-climax. I wouldn't have wanted it to last any more than it did, as the same few subjects are repeated throughout.
* The book is amusingly called Killing an Arab by Albert Camus. This is a reference to the Cure's song Killing an Arab, which is based on a scene in Albert Camus's book L'Etranger. However, the character in L'Etranger kills an Arab for no reason - that's the point of the book. In addition, Camus was a left-wing anti-racist. Still a funny reference.
The film does not have a clear political message. There is a politicised character in Kruger, but it is unclear whether the film's producers agree with him or not; he says at the outset that the war is all about protecting oil profits and he is the only one to refuse to sign a waiver of rights over untested drugs (allegedly to protect against Saddam's chemical weapons). The film is about the anti-climax for the soliders in the Gulf War (there must've been a similar anti-climax for soldiers in other wars, such as those who were sent to the Sudan during WWII and never fired a shot in anger). The soldiers become so frustrated that they read books about killing Arabs* and become furious when orders to shoot an enemy are rescinded. However, you get no indication from the film whether the writers and directors think the Gulf War was justified or not.
The film begins by telling you why each of the soldiers have joined, and ends by showing what happens to each after they leave the military (except Sergeant Sykes, who is shown in the Iraq War). I'm not sure whether this was deliberate or not, but I thought that this sent out the message that war does not necessarily scar you for life: some of them do come off badly after the Gulf War, but others are shown as happy and successful. James Meek has criticised the film for underplaying the horrors of war. I don't agree with him as there is a very significant scene where they discover a group of cars and carriages that have been bombed to cinders. Not many American troops died in the Gulf War, but plenty of people in Kuwait died in it. I think that wars in which fewer of our own troops die are forgotten more quickly. Kosovo was only 12 years ago, yet who speaks of that now?
I'm giving this 4 stars; it's not memorable enough to get 5. This is a film aimed at portrayed boredom and anti-climax: it does that well, but there's just no way of making 5-star entertainment out of boredom and anti-climax. I wouldn't have wanted it to last any more than it did, as the same few subjects are repeated throughout.
* The book is amusingly called Killing an Arab by Albert Camus. This is a reference to the Cure's song Killing an Arab, which is based on a scene in Albert Camus's book L'Etranger. However, the character in L'Etranger kills an Arab for no reason - that's the point of the book. In addition, Camus was a left-wing anti-racist. Still a funny reference.
Friday, 4 February 2011
The King's Speech
(Written 20/1)Last night I went to the cinema to see The Kings Speech. We were originally going to go to the City Screen straight after work but it had sold out in town; instead we drove up to Clifton moor for a later showing. It was packed there as well but we managed to get in. A lot of the older crowd appear to be drawn to this film, a mixture of flag wavers and Colin Firth lovers perhaps. There was definitely a higher average age than usual in the cinema (which I remember reading somewhere was around 26**), not that there’s anything wrong with that of course and it was nice to be in a big packed out cinema. In fact, I can’t remember the last time that has been the case – maybe as long ago as rings?
I gave the film 5 stars and really would recommend it to anyone with the exception perhaps of only the staunchest anti-monarchists! Regardless of your political opinions the monarchy carries a great deal of fascination and the film plays to that with a great attention to detail. In addition it is very well acted all round and Colin Firth is understandably a leading Oscar contender as the eponymous King George VI; the reluctant war time monarch plagued with a stammer since early childhood. The supporting cast was excellent with Helena Bonham Carter’s Queen Mum also worthy of her rave reviews (especially it seems from those who remember her in her prime). One slight exception for me was Timothy Spall’s Churchill; his scenes being the only where I wasn’t completely engrossed and was instead brought round to the actor’s playing of the part.
The best scenes were when Firth and Geoffrey Rush, the unconventional Australian speech therapist, were working together in his dingy London clinic and it is their relationship that really draws the viewer in. There were humorous moments, again mostly when they are engaged in the secret therapy sessions, but the film still captured the personal torment brought about by his condition and his unwillingness to be king. The characters and story are developed excellently with the crescendo building to George’s speech at the outbreak of WW2. The threat of the outbreak of war looms greater as the film progresses and actual footage of Hitler and the Nazi army is particularly harrowing on the big screen (shown to us the audience as it was to the characters in the film).
Any criticisms were few and minor. It maybe flirts with overindulgence at times (not least Guy Pearce’s flamboyant Edward) and as mentioned, the role of Churchill is more of a distraction than a contributor to the story. I have perhaps been more stirred by other films though the speech he delivers at the end is undoubtedly rousing. The troubled childhood of which his stammer is born is touched upon in an emotional scene after his father has died though not explored any further – maybe it could have been but then again the film reminds us in other parts of how little room for sentimentality there was in the royal family, contrary to the image we are presented with in the 21st century.
All in all it was a very enjoyable watch and nice to experience the buzz of a full cinema – I sensed the audience were very close to bursting out in applause at the end having had our national pride pandered to so well though our reserved Englishness kept it just out of reach. Maybe all it would have taken was one person to set it off! It seems the box office will have a good take; likewise the lead actors will deservedly take their plaudits. Having recently seen ‘A Single Man’, Colin Firth has again gone up in my opinion and I will be looking out with interest what future roles he takes on. It will keep the monarchists buzzing for a while and is worthy in its own right as a very watchable and engaging film.
** more info here: http://sy09.ukfilmcouncil.ry.com/?id=41339
American Beauty
American Beauty is one of those films in which almost all the characters are arseholes. The film begins with the spoilt brat Jane going on a rant about how pathetic her father (Lester) is; it's not until the film ends that you realise the significance of this part. The mother (Carolyn) is a failing real-estate agent. Lester is at risk of redundancy in his unsatisfying job at a magazine. These two begin as normal, nice-enough, middle-class, White Americans. They have drifted apart in their marriage slowly so that now they cannot stand each other. They live in a huge house. They do their best for their daughter, but she hates them and rebels by deliberately looking unattractive.
Jane's best friend (Angela) is a flirtatious girl, who is afraid of being considered "ordinary" and feels excited when other men fancy her. She has better social skills than Jane, but is manipulative underneath the smiles.
Lester & Co get some new neighbours. Frank Fritts is an ex-marine with Nazi sympathies (wouldn't have been much use in WWII) and the son (Ricky) has been brutalised by his parenting methods. Ricky sells cannabis and earns a large amount of money, which Frank thinks he earns from working in catering. Frank begins to film Jane on her way home from school. In one of those plot twists that are dangerously unrealistic, Jane falls in love with Frank later on. I wonder if anyone decided to imitate Ricky's methods to win the heart of a girl.
The plot unravels well in the first two-thirds, with a series of events leading to character changes. Lester becomes sick of how unfilfilling his life is. He starts to talk back to Carolyn, having been passive for many years, and starts to wank in bed whilst lying next to her. When asked to write a statement of his worth to the magazine, Lester gives a sarcastic return to prompt being sacked, although he wins a decent payoff after blackmailing them with the release of embarrassing information. He starts to fancy Angela, and exercises so that he can look better in front of her. His fantasy scenes are very funny. After meeting Ricky at a pretentious dinner party, Lester begins to buy cannabis from him.
Carolyn is not developed in as much depth. She has an affair with one of Lester's business rivals after meeting him at the dinner party, and makes efforts to re-connect with Jane when the family is falling apart, but is unsuccessful. She feels as if everything is falling apart around her, and finally loses it when even her affair is unsuccessful.
The film ends with a narrative from Lester about how much beauty there is the world and how it's "hard to stay mad". This seems strange when you consider how mad all the characters have been for the last 100 minutes, so it took me a while to interpret this. Here is my view. Lester, Carolyn and Jane are well-off yet are thoroughly miserable. None of them seems to have a single health relationship or cause to work towards. In contrast, Jane had fallen for Ricky, who never lets anything get him down and takes pleasure from capturing simple images in life, such as a bag flying around. The message may be that people expect to find happiness from chasing material things when in fact that's just likely to lead us to a meaningless job and a dysfunctional family. The beauty in life is free, but many of us ignore it for the sake of material possessions. I would back this interpretation up with the (very good) scene in which Lester and Carolyn seem about to reconcile before Carolyn warns against Lester's spoiling the settee, which leads him to go on a rant about how it's just a fucking settee.
I'll give this four stars, but I think that it is overrated by others. It is not the 39th best film ever, as IMDb claims at present. The last third of the film becomes cumbersome. I can't discuss this part much, as it would give away the ending, but I found the end to leave a lot hanging, and the threads with Frank Fritts and Angela end in anti-climax. Apparently there was a different ending in the original script, which sounds a lot better to me. A good film can leave a few things up in the air, but this one goes too far. In addition, I mark it down because Jane seems to fall for Ricky out of the blue, and I doubt that any moody spoilt girl would fall for a drug-dealing peeping tom so quickly. The humour in the film is very uneven; some parts are very silly and other parts are about as funny as cancer.
Jane's best friend (Angela) is a flirtatious girl, who is afraid of being considered "ordinary" and feels excited when other men fancy her. She has better social skills than Jane, but is manipulative underneath the smiles.
Lester & Co get some new neighbours. Frank Fritts is an ex-marine with Nazi sympathies (wouldn't have been much use in WWII) and the son (Ricky) has been brutalised by his parenting methods. Ricky sells cannabis and earns a large amount of money, which Frank thinks he earns from working in catering. Frank begins to film Jane on her way home from school. In one of those plot twists that are dangerously unrealistic, Jane falls in love with Frank later on. I wonder if anyone decided to imitate Ricky's methods to win the heart of a girl.
The plot unravels well in the first two-thirds, with a series of events leading to character changes. Lester becomes sick of how unfilfilling his life is. He starts to talk back to Carolyn, having been passive for many years, and starts to wank in bed whilst lying next to her. When asked to write a statement of his worth to the magazine, Lester gives a sarcastic return to prompt being sacked, although he wins a decent payoff after blackmailing them with the release of embarrassing information. He starts to fancy Angela, and exercises so that he can look better in front of her. His fantasy scenes are very funny. After meeting Ricky at a pretentious dinner party, Lester begins to buy cannabis from him.
Carolyn is not developed in as much depth. She has an affair with one of Lester's business rivals after meeting him at the dinner party, and makes efforts to re-connect with Jane when the family is falling apart, but is unsuccessful. She feels as if everything is falling apart around her, and finally loses it when even her affair is unsuccessful.
The film ends with a narrative from Lester about how much beauty there is the world and how it's "hard to stay mad". This seems strange when you consider how mad all the characters have been for the last 100 minutes, so it took me a while to interpret this. Here is my view. Lester, Carolyn and Jane are well-off yet are thoroughly miserable. None of them seems to have a single health relationship or cause to work towards. In contrast, Jane had fallen for Ricky, who never lets anything get him down and takes pleasure from capturing simple images in life, such as a bag flying around. The message may be that people expect to find happiness from chasing material things when in fact that's just likely to lead us to a meaningless job and a dysfunctional family. The beauty in life is free, but many of us ignore it for the sake of material possessions. I would back this interpretation up with the (very good) scene in which Lester and Carolyn seem about to reconcile before Carolyn warns against Lester's spoiling the settee, which leads him to go on a rant about how it's just a fucking settee.
I'll give this four stars, but I think that it is overrated by others. It is not the 39th best film ever, as IMDb claims at present. The last third of the film becomes cumbersome. I can't discuss this part much, as it would give away the ending, but I found the end to leave a lot hanging, and the threads with Frank Fritts and Angela end in anti-climax. Apparently there was a different ending in the original script, which sounds a lot better to me. A good film can leave a few things up in the air, but this one goes too far. In addition, I mark it down because Jane seems to fall for Ricky out of the blue, and I doubt that any moody spoilt girl would fall for a drug-dealing peeping tom so quickly. The humour in the film is very uneven; some parts are very silly and other parts are about as funny as cancer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)