15.01: 127 HOURS

I was intending to write-up my review of the new Danny Boyle film 127 Hours, the true-life tale of trapped amateur climber Aron Ralston (James Franco). But doing so after the massive earthquake that struck Christchurch yesterday, utterly devastating the South Island city, seems a bit... vulgar. To write about a film where one man is trapped in a rocky canyon for 5 days, while as I write this many more are trapped in buildings that have just collapsed in on themselves... I just don't think I can do it. I do feel I need to write, however. I cannot really explain this compulsion. Perhaps it is something that has become more hardwired into my brain over the last few months of this blog. Perhaps I need a way to organise my thoughts on this disaster, and writing it down is just how I do it. I'm not sure.

For those who read this blog, and live outside New Zealand, a massive earthquake struck the major South Island city of Christchurch yesterday afternoon. Christchurch was earlier rocked by an earthquake in September and much was talked about how lucky the city was that this struck in the middle of the night - there were no fatalities and those injured was minimal. The city was not so luck this time. The earthquake was shallower and struck right in the middle of lunchtime. The city centre looks utterly destroyed - many landmarks (including the Christchurch Cathedral) have been reduced to rubble. Workers returned from their lunchbreaks to find their workplaces gone, with many workers still trapped inside. There have been deaths, many deaths, and there will be more. 

I have no friends or family in Christchurch. But my friends do. I have colleagues down there. I live in Wellington, where they have been predicting "the big one" for the past 20 years or so. It seems to have struck Christchurch instead. The images that have shown on the news, constantly, have been truly shocking. Dust settled over the city, much like in New York after 9/11. The facades of buildings lay in the street, the rubble crushing cars underneath. People were frightened, in shock, injured. Some, depite being covered in blood and dust, were helping co-ordinate rescue efforts for their buildings.

They're still digging people out of the rubble. Bodies too, with the death toll rising and nearing 100 with more still missing. But people too. People have survived the night, and are still being discovered and rescued. A national state of emergency has been declared. Many people have lost their homes. To even go about regular day-to-day activities seems absurd to me. To write about a film, this film in particular, seems absurd in the extreme. 


If there is something you can do, or want to do, to help this city and the people in it... please do it. 


The NZ Red Cross
NZ Civil Defence
Stuff.co.nz: How to Help
Herald: How to Help
3News site
Kiwiblog

11.02: THE KING'S SPEECH

The Colin Firth starring, Tom Hooper directed The King's Speech is a solidly entertaining film. There are obstacles overcome, a period setting, a cast of fantastic actors and more than a little humour. I don't really see too much more to it than that. Solid, but not Best Picture material.

And this is no bad thing. Too often nowadays we are deprived of decent dramatic films. All too often, what's on at the cinema is pre-packaged and pre-sold and (more often than not), less than satisfying. The King's Speech is a very, very good film. It's not hard to see, though, why the Academy (and BAFTAs etc.) have warmed to it: a little known, true-life tale about a monarch facing a very human struggle; with said royal portrayed by certified British national treasure Colin Firth. Which is not to say I believe it was a cynical exercise in fishing for awards glory. No, you can tell that bringing this tale to the screen was a very real desire to tell this particular story. This is a tale that, before all the awards and buzz, you may have struggled to see the appeal of: it's all about a stammering royal learning to speak properly. "Yes, its got a great cast but boy, I bet we're in for a lot of stuffy English folk standing around, talking. Snore!"

Not so. And, in fact, this is a film I've been looking forward to seeing ever since I first heard of it. What a bloody great, little known facet of history! That King George VI, current Queen Liz's da, was a stutterer and had to consult with an unconventional Aussie speech therapist in order to help lead England through WWII. It's the kind of historical oddity I geek out about a little bit. And the film covers a decent swathe of history; there's two other blokes (King George V and King Edward VIII) who are king before Bertie is crowned.

Colin Firth anchors the film as the Duke of York, Prince Albert (or Bertie to his family), later to be King George VI. His speech afflicted royal is a very human figure; sympathetic but with an angry streak. Giving more than able support (both in his role, and with his character) is Geoffery Rush as the speech therapist from the colonies, Lionel Logue. It's a delight to see Rush out from under the pirate make-up again, and the role seems an absolute natural fit for him. Logue is a failed actor fallen into speech therapy (after helping many of the boys coming home from WWI) and he has an obvious love of language and desire to help those who struggle. He is family man, with a wonderful and joyous interplay between himself, wife and sons. Whereas the stuttering Duke has to contend with a pressuring, demanding father and a teasing, dashing father. 

Thankfully he has Helena Bonham Carter as his wife, Elizabeth (ie. the Queen Mum). Bonham Carter brings her typically quirky approach, making Elizabeth something of a delightful eccentric with a warm heart. Thankfully, she never overdoes it and it makes for her best role in ages. Guy Pearce also delivers another fine supporting role as George VI's brother, the flinty King Edward VIII who abdicated to marry the American divorcee Mrs. Simpson. Pearce is perfectly plummy and his Edward VIII is, despite the oh-so romantic notion of giving up a kingdom for love, a decent example of privilege gone wrong. He is something of a man-child, never willing (or wanting) to take responsibility for anything, least of all a country. Timothy Spall, however, threatens to upend things as a caricature of Winston Churchill. The film has a surprising streak of comedy through it, often cropping up unexpectedly and Spall's Churchill sticks out as simply going too far. 

I also found some of director Tom Hooper's photography choices distracting, with a few scenes looking like they had been shot with an almost fish-eye lens. This caused the picture to look flat and unreal at the edge of frame. This, and other choices such as framing actors off-centre, do however lend the film something other than a stuffy period drama air.

Screenwriter David Seidler, Hooper and the cast have made a commendable film; a film about the struggle of a king, an unlikely friendship and family. There are moments of surprising humour (the soon to be classic swearing tirade) and scenes that are genuinely touching (such as the struggling stutterer giving his daughters - the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret - a bedtime story. The desire to not disappoint his daughters and the creativity and humour he displays really help you warm to him). As I've said, The King's Speech is a solid, well-made and entertaining drama bringing a real historical tale to life. For whatever reason, I didn't find much more than that to it.

29.01: BLACK SWAN

One of Black Swan's many fantastic posters

From one controlling mother figure in Disney's Tangled, to another in ballet psycho-drama Black Swan: a double feature I did not expect to have a connecting thread.

There has been much written (and that I have read) on Darren Aronofsky’s new film. More than a few people (and critics) have found themselves disconnected from the film’s events and although I loved the film, I can perhaps see why some found it so hilarious. And while it shares some DNA with Aronofsky’s previous The Wrestler, Black Swan is very much its own heady mix of psycho-drama, melodrama, body horror and obsession. In short, a cinematic cocktail that can easily become over-the-top for some viewers.

However, I went with it. I loved it and found it to be an intense charting of one woman’s pursuit of perfection and her descent into madness. While simultaneously exploring creativity and the obsession that can result from it and casting a light on an otherwise little seen aspect of ballet (as opposed to The Wrestler’s, well, wrestling). A heady mix indeed.

Portman as Nina, the perfect but passionless ballerina, gives a devastating performance. She utterly disappears into the role of the prim and disturbed Nina, constantly under the thumb of her mother and choreographer. The role is something akin to performing ballet atop a high wire – there are so many precise moments and emotions Portman has to hit, so many little suggestions she has to give us while at the same time balancing the delicate nature and psychosis of Nina, without making it absurd. And come the end, with her transformation into the confident, vengeful and sensual black swan, it is a change so convincing and so complete I was utterly stunned.

I don't think the (admittedly mad) pursuit of the unattainable perfection is what sends Nina over the edge of sanity. No, I found it intriguing that the first sign we are given of her paddling dangerously close to the waters of insanity comes before she is given the role of the Swan Queen, before the pressure and expectation are really, truly piled on. It lends a curious new dimension to the film: it is not the creative process that sends her into insanity; instead it becomes a dangerously off kilter person who is pushed further out.

To be sure, you can surmise that that pressure has always been there for Nina - in the form of her creepily obsessed mother Erica. She was once a ballet dancer; she never made it very far and having a child obviously put paid to her career. She lives her life through her daughter - always pushing her, always wanting Nina to succeed to validate her own life. Barbara Hershey is mesmerisingly excruciating as the mother, bringing equal effect to the smallest interactions and the largest dramatic gestures.

Throughout the film, Aronofsky focuses on the duality of the white swan/black swan and Nina/Lily (Mila Kunis). He teeter’s dangerously close to swamping us with the virginal/sensual, white/black, female/male, mirrors, twins and doppelgangers imagery and themes. Mila Kunis' Lily is the opposite of Portman's Nina in just about every possible way, and this is continually pointed out to us. Aronofsky's use of visual effects to enhance proceedings is far more subtle and strong work; the CG (and there is plenty of CG) never once screams "Look at me! Look at how wonderful this visual effect is! BE DAZZLED!" Instead, Aronofsky proves himself one of the few directors with an understanding of how CG and VFX can be used to enhance rather than distract from the story. The use of a handheld aesthetic helps add to the feeling of immediacy and never once feels like an overused gimmick - which is saying something, because it kind of is nowadays. It is a fine balancing act Aronofsky has to maintain throughout the runtime. I would say he is largely successful with it, though I know others will disagree. 

Ballet, to me, can often seem like a bizarre challenge/torture to the human body. The supreme, painful effort ballet dancers have to put themselves through for each performance has always struck me as a little mad. But, when they create something graceful and beautiful it all seems worth it. However truthful to the actual life of a ballerina Black Swan is or isn't, I believe it succeeds in being a dizzying mix of melodrama, body horror, creative forces and psychodrama. I know that reactions tend to fall under "loved it!" or "laughed at it!", but I will happily say I loved it and that I cannot wait to see where Aronofsky takes us next.