Shame

Released in 2011, Shame is the second feature film directed and co-written by Steve McQueen. It stars Michael Fassbender as sex addict Brandon, and Carey Mulligan as his sister, Sissy. As you may predict the plot centres around Brandon's secretive and lonely existence in New York city, which is disrupted indefinately when his sister comes to stay.

As blunt as its title, Shame is a film about the simultaneous complexities and primalities of human emotion. From its opening sequences we are confronted with nude shots of Fassbender, we share his most intimate moments, from masturbating to urinating. Brandon suffers silently from an overwhelming lust, which seems to derive from an intrinsic sense of emptiness in his life. I have never witnessed a film which can possess such a dichotomy of the (mutually dependent) graphic and subtle. Yes it's very base, it's very visceral - there is, predictably, a lot of crude sex - but this is told with such style that you can see there's a deep sadness in Brandon's past and present.

An omnipresent theme in postmodern American art, the disappointing nature of the American Dream is alluded to, with Carey Mulligan’s melancholy rendition of ‘New York, New York’. This scene was apparently shot with three cameras in real time and in one take, with Fassbender never having heard Mulligan sing, his reaction being completely authentic. The camera hovers on Sissy for an uncomfortable time span, forcing us to watch her in many ways pathetic state as she gazes to an off-screen presence and laments slowly, poignantly and painfully. It then mirrors this stare at Brandon, and through such matched juxtaposition we see that they are the same, brutally unhappy parts of one whole.

The reason for the siblings’ unhappiness is never revealed in the film, instead we are given random mismatched pieces of their past in the form as subtle as Sissy flinching when a man moves towards her wrist, to Brandon’s unexplained scarring on his back. We don’t need to be told explicitly what mutual horror they faced in their childhood – it is manifested in what they do, how they appear and perform, as well as through the beautiful cinematography throughout.

Something that caught my attention stylistically throughout the film was the use of a blue colour palette whenever Fassbender’s character is alone in shot, and he is isolated as such frequently. Blue here contrasts with the vapid gold and yellows of the city, casting Brandon as cold, lifeless, alone. It encapsulates that bitterly ironic feeling of being alone amongst masses.  

Moreover, more indie elements of Shame include McQueen's use of long takes. It really unsettles the edit-trained viewer (including myself) for a shot to last longer than normal, or worse, for a shot to continue to frame someone's face when they are listening to the other person talking. McQueen uses whole scenes made of one shot. The most impressive is when Brandon goes out for a run and a tracking shot films a couple of minutes of him just running, clearly frustrated, until he leaves the shot at a crossroads and we (the camera) do not follow him. This is irritating for us, the viewer as we are so spoilt in cinema at having multiple, privileged viewpoints of the action. The director removes this privilege and tells us that no, you are just a voyeur, you can't have everything you want, this is the film as I want you to see it. It's refreshing.  

As with many indie films also, you're left thinking 'well, what was all that about?'. Shame is bleak, graphic and grotesque often, and its ending is so open. Once again destroying conformities: we do not get a satisfying narrative ark; I'm not convinced the characters develop throughout the film apart from becoming more angry and twisted. There is no sympathetic character, and there is no resolution (sorry if that's a spoiler). And yet, I felt moved.

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's spectacular crescendo to the iconic Batman franchise, which began in 2005.


The film is - as with the director's other work, Inception for instance - sublimely operatic, a marvel of sensation but also of intricate plot-work. Following in the footsteps of its predecessors, dark is the title's optimum word. As was established with Batman Begins, gone was the camp POW! and KAZAM! of Adam West's Batman, and, perhaps encouraged by Burton's comparably darker Batman (1989), in was the tortured vigilante and ever-hostile Gotham City.






The Dark Knight Rises commences eight years after Gotham's 'heroic' DA, Harvey two-face Dent's (Aaron Eckhart) death, and we encounter Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) at an uncharacteristic low-point, having all but abandoned his billion dollar company due to injuries and in mourning from Rachel's (Maggie Gyllenhaal) death, which also took place in The Dark Knight. But our bat-loving antihero cannot stay dormant for long, a new villain by the name of Bane (Tom Hardy) has realised an unfortunate ambition to crush Wayne's hometown, to the absolute core.

Speak of the devil, Tom Hardy plays an insatiable villain, whose - literally; the sound effects for his footsteps sound like a bomb exploding - booming presence assaults every scene in which he takes place. The clipped British accent is absurdly juxtaposed with his otherwise thuggish aesthetic, but this somehow works, making his character chilling and memorable. Of course it is inevitable to compare Hardy's Bane to Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) iconic Joker, but the villains themselves are completely different - Bane has a motivation - and I believe both excelled in their individual performance.

Has Batman met his match?

Anne Hathaway does well as Catwoman, a cat burglar who desires a 'clean slate'. But I still couldn't help feeling that the actress, more renowned for her cute and even awkward roles, was ill suited for this role, miscast in the producers' desire for star power. Someone like the cattish Mila Kunis (less known) may have brought more of an edge to the performance. However, Hathaway is adequate and it is commendable that she broke out of her comfort zone. Other stars include old favourites Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Commisioner I-don't-retire Gordon and of course Michael Caine, who breaks your heart as the Wayne butler Alfred; as well as Batman newbie Joseph Gordon-Levitt.






With Nolan, we all expect spectacle. And the man does not disappoint. In Rises we find ourselves witnessing an apocalyptic Gotham, one ripped outlandishly apart by Bane, from its core infrastructure. You'll know what I mean if you've seen that trailer - the collapse of the American football stadium, accompanied by a creepy Welsh boy singing the US National Anthem. Filmed with IMAX cameras, but avoiding the farcical 3D temptation, Rises near takes your breath away at frequent intervals. No one does blockbuster like Nolan.





There's a real sense of unpredictability about this finale, Batman truly hits rock bottom, to an extent you can't possibly forsee how he'll recover from the mess he's in in time to save the day. The plot is full of twists, with a pleasing intertwining of the Batman Begins narrative, from the use of graphic match down to that victorious ascending chord sequence, wrapping this last in a filmic marathon up in no less than a perfect manner.


Throughout the series, you have to wonder why Bruce Wayne constantly and irrevocably risks everything to save ungrateful and by all measures (apart from its notably unusual attraction of comic book heroes and villains) unremarkable Gotham City. Well, take Gotham as an analogy for the world. Yes, it's full of shits, and it may not seem worth it, but there remains a spark of light which The Dark Knight Rises towards.

The Amazing Spider-Man

After a decade of the 2002 franchise gathering cobwebs, The Amazing Spider-man bursts onto the big screen with enough emphasis to make us Marvel (tehe). Starring Andrew Garfield as the comic book hero, the plot centers around Peter Parker discovering his alter ego, and facing the challenges of the confusion of the police force, a giant lizard-man hybrid and, worst of all, meeting the protective parents of his love interest.

With a surname like that, I can't help feeling that Marc Webb was made to direct this film. Best known for his quirky indie rom-com 500 Days of Summer (2009) the same feelings of youthful highs and angsts are encapsulated in The Amazing Spider-man. Maybe I'm being a little patriotic, but I'd argue that the 'rising star' Brit Andrew Garfield, is majorly responsible for this vibe.

Garfield is perfect for the outcast teenager Parker. He balloons from tortured and uncertain, even awkward at times, to sarcastic and arrogant in his mask, crying at a car thief who has just withdrawn a weapon: "you found my weakness, it's small knives!" before dispatching him with his nifty web-shooter. The way Parker's discovery of his super-strength is revealed is hilarious, with him waking up and smashing his alarm clock, and in attempt to brush his teeth incidentally destroying the bathroom sink and mirror. Somehow though Andrew Garfield manages, something I didn't feel Maguire ever pulled off, to make the guy in a red and blue spandex suit cool. 


 



In terms of visuals, I would recommend you see this in 3D - the CGI as Spiderman swoops the Big Apple is aesthetically astounding, particularly the series of point-of-view shots which literally thrusts us into his perspective as he scales skyscrapers, filling the audience with a rush of absolute vertigo. It's worth waiting to the last sequence of the film simply to experience the acrobatic wonder of Parker, clad in Spider-lycra ensemble, somersaulting, bounding and corkscrewing across midnight New York. It really is a visionary sensation.







Furthermore, the collaborative screenplay is sharp, current and convincing:


GWEN STACY: What's your name?
PETER PARKER: You don't know my name?
GWEN STACY: Of course I do, I was just checking you know it.


The narrative is satisfying - and even tear-jerking at points, if you're a wuss like me - and the rest of the cast, such as the ever-likable Emma Stone, gets a thumbs up too. A must Summer Movie for film fans, don't be left on the sidewalk as The Amazing Spider-man swings past.






P.S, don't forget to wait for after the credits for an extra clip ;)

Fairytale Film

It has been announced that Angelina Jolie is to star in a 2014 slant on Sleeping Beauty, and I'm assuming here they mean slant on Disney's Sleeping Beauty (1959) because wardrobe have definitely focused on the evil fairy Maleficent look from said film. Jolie is going to somehow make this horned weirdo look cool and sexy and 'identifiable', is the assumed plot, a the-other-side-of-the-story which brings to mind Wicked.










It seems lately Hollywood has cottoned on to the idea of reimagining tried and tested fairytale stories, revising the concept and flipping it on itself. Culturally our fascination with fairytale seems to still exist, films have managed to grasp the central idea of a story, such as Sleeping Beauty, Red Riding Hood and Snow White, and tailored it to suit modern audiences. Recent examples include Red Riding Hood (Catherine Hardwicke, 2011) which was pretty much Twilight with a red cape.


Disney were perhaps the first production company to adapt the Grimm fairytale to a film narrative. In their landmark first feature film, Snow White (1937), the eponymous princess sings precociously “some day my Prince will come”. This chick is the stereotypical feeble fairytale princess. For the whole film she does nothing about her fate, staying at home and cleaning the house while the seven dwarfs pop off to work every day, and settling in the kitchen baking cakes with birds (yeah, that bit did look fun). Even when coming under constant attack from the pro-active - although admittedly insane - Evil Queen she does nothing but literally take the apple and drop dead. STUPID. It is the dwarfs, and the prince that must come to her aid.

Seriously, WHO TAKES APPLES FROM THIS WOMAN?! This bitch still gives me nightmares

But you can't really blame Snow White for being demeaning to women, after all it was the thirties (!) Back to the present day, this year we've been assaulted with two Snow White adaptations: Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman. Mirror Mirror focuses on being comic and stars Julia Roberts as the Evil Queen, whereas Snow White and the Hunstman is more of an action-epic boasting a leading cast of Chris Hemsworth (aka Avengers' Thor), Charlize Theron as the chilling and beautiful antagonist and Kristen Stewart (aka Bella-preggers-Swan) as Ms White. Fortunately, in this adaptation, the 'fair maiden' is not so much a damsel in distress. Rather than waiting around to be killed or saved, she stands up and fights for herself. Rather than wincing, she screams at monsters:

And yet the aesthetics of the otherworldly, ethereal, the fairytale, remains in tact in this film, with Gothic castles, enchanted forests and intricately designed mythical CGI creatures. The iconic apple, the narcissistic mirror and of course the dwarfs make revised appearances, casting Snow White and The Huntsman as essentially a fairytale, albeit with modern feminist twist.

Bambi gets involved

But why does faiytale continue to be relevant in society? in Snow White and the Huntsman, Charlize Theron smoulders as the Queen who hungers for eternal youth and beauty at any cost, and could that not be reflected upon society today? Fairytales like Snow White have stayed with us perhaps because they, in a fantasist, illusionary vehicle, present to us our own universal flaws and virtues, fears and desires.


***




Also coming soon on the Fairytale vibe is the retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack the Giant Killer (set for release 2013) which I was lucky enough to see the set of. Not giving anything away, but expect some giants.

Let The Right One / Me In

I  previously compared an American remake of a Scandinavian film in my Girl With The Dragon Tattoo post, and here is its sequel, if you like.

If you've just got back from a pretty much 12 hour spout of travelling, probably the very bottom of the go-to film list should be Let Me In (Matt Reeves, 2010) which, I would argue could only be topped in depressing-ness by Requiem for a Dream, Never Let Me Go or something like Deep Impact, but this is the film I was assaulted with on my day of relaxation.

Let Me In is the English language remake of Let The Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008), which was in turn adapted from the popular gothic novel of the same title. It starrs Chloe Grace Moretz as the 12 year old vampire, and she is insatiable in her depiction of the character's dichotomous conflict between innocence and corruption. This is the central paradox and controversy of the story - Should we / can we sympathise with this monster?

Abby, as she is called, is not like the 'vampires' in Twilight , or hardly like any vampire depicted before. Rather than being glorified as Edward Cullen, with his clean-cut hair do and sparkly skin, she is (in the nicest way) repulsive. The way she is shot in her true vampire form, with the twitchy, flickering, spider-like effects that connote Samara from The Ring, remove any expectation of grace that the audience may have of the vampire. Her actions of killing innocents, and particularly manipulating the protagonist Owen and the 'father' until his sticky end, distinguish her as an object of disgust, or typically evil.

"What's that? Vampire's don't just ponce around looking sexy and mysterious all the time?"

However, since the story is told half from Abby's perspective, we as the audience are caught in between loathing her and sympathising with her pathetic state. Her perceived youth and inability to nourish herself cast her as vulnerable, at the same time she befriends the lonely Owen and ultimately shields him from his bullies at school. Her aforementioned lack of glamour also contributes to this sympathy, particularly in the scene where she enters Owen's house without invitation and faces the horrendous consequences. We can't help but pity her here.




Let The Right One / Me In is a brutal story, dark to the core and utterly subversive of the modern 'Vampire' archetype. It is so powerful because of its bleakness, lack of romanticism and cyclical view of abuse and neglect. If I had to chose which film I prefer I'd have to be boring and say I like both for different reasons, the Swedish version I feel embodies the gothic exotic for English or American viewers as it is set in an abstract location, but I feel both young actresses played the role of Abby to a chilling brilliance, and both dealt with the abject and horrific elements of the plot explicitly.

I'd certainly recommend you watch both films, but please don't make the same mistake as I did and select to watch them when you were more in the mood for something light-hearted and not in the slightest thought-provoking. It's a buzz kill to say the least.