review: THE BACK TO THE FUTURE TRILOGY

amazing poster by the great Drew Struzan

As anyone who follows my twitter (@TheRocketRobot) knows, on Friday night I and a couple of mates attended a marathon viewing of the complete Back to the Future trilogy at the Embassy theatre here in Wellington. This was, to be absolutely literal, a dream come true.

If you've read this blog, or my twitter, or even just talked casually to me in person then you'll know that I am a passionate defender of the cinema. Despite the multifarious options available, the cinema is still the undisputed best place to see a movie. We can argue the merits of 35mm vs DCP, but that's beside this particular point. And that was proved with the screening of the first Back to the Future. It was a packed audience - some 500 or 600 people - and there were fans and first-timers alike. But everyone, everyone, loved it. And this is why the cinema experience trumps anything else. When you're in the middle of an appreciative audience, all wrapped up in the unfolding cinematic magic on screen... well, you just don't understand why people would download and watch on a tiny screen.

And that's the other thing - the cinema screen. These three films happened to be DCPs, as Universal is apparently releasing a number of their classic films to celebrate their anniversary. But for someone like me, who has only ever seen these films on DVD, it was like watching an entirely new film. I never noticed how wildly animated Christopher Lloyd's face is, or how truly beguiling and enchanting Lea Thompson is. Not to mention the pleasure of a larger-than-life Crispin Glover, who's George McFly is so wonderfully weird, with that slight whisper of a voice and his limbs flailing about. And that's not even mentioning the secret hero of the cast: Thomas F. Wilson. His various Tannen's (whether they be young Biff, middle-aged Biff, old Biff, Griff or Mad Dog) are sneer-worthy villains, all of them without redeeming characteristics and just this side of moustache twirling. He's a big lug and the audience can't help but cheer as he is covered in manure again and again and again.

The first Back to the Future is still my favourite and, to my mind, the best of the trilogy. The emotional story is so strong and the script is unquestionable perfection. It's simply a tight adventure script, with great characters and humour that Hollywood just doesn't seem able to do any more. Anchored by all-time great performances from character actors, new comers and a TV star the first Back to the Future is the big-budget studio system at it's very best. And this showing of it was the greatest viewing I've ever had of it. I had the greatest time and loved the enthusiasm from the crowd: the DeLorean got a cheer on it's first appearance.

Part II is still a good film but it doesn't have the same emotional connection as the first one. To me, it works more on an intellectual level than the emotional as we unwind the tangle of time that Doc Brown's DeLorean has created. To some extent the second film is just further set-up for the third and you can all but see Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis attempting to live up to the promise of the end of the first film. It's still strange to me that Jennifer is picked up by the Doc to be taken to the future, only to be dumped for most of the rest of the film. Which is not to rag on the film entirely. The way Gale and Zemeckis tie Part II into the first film, going back into it and having Marty desperately run around trying to ensure everything happens as it did but also running into even more obstacles is a lot of great fun. And the extent of the set-ups for Part III are staggering. It just lacks that sweetness that was so inherent to the first. But hey, it did also give us a flying DeLorean, hoverboards and automatically lacing shoes.

Part III would be my second favourite of the trilogy and is just a whole lotta fun. I read a quote from Gale or Zemeckis somewhere that they set Part III in the Old West simply because they'd always wanted to make a Western. So they did. It's a blast of pure, unbridled fun to wrap up the trilogy as Doc and Marty play at cowboys in Hill Valley, 1885. Along the way Marty invents the frisbee, runs into his great-great-grandparents and the Doc falls in love. And there's that emotional story that helps tie in the film together and lets the audience in. If Part III is anyone's film, it's the Docs; he truly takes centre-stage as the sweet but badass blacksmith/inventor. To top everything off Part III was doing steampunk before steampunk was even a thing. So, I guess that's one "future" thing the trilogy was bang on the money with. Watching all three films on that big screen, back-to-back-to-Back you really pick up how tight all of the scripts are, how they have numerous set-ups and pay-offs (sometimes taking an entire film or more to pay-off) and how they have numerous echoes throughout each one. They hardly ever call attention to themselves but allow neat little moments for people paying attention.

Honestly, I never, ever thought I would get to see the first Back to the Future in a cinema, let alone a marathon of the entire trilogy. Absolutely a life dream fulfilled on Friday night and now I can only look forward to whatever comes next. The Indiana Jones trilogy? A Hitchcock marathon? Predator? RoboCop? Cinemas: you play 'em and I'll be there with a giant grin on my face and as many friends as I can get together in tow. 

Quick review: CORIOLANUS (World Cinema Showcase)

You gotta give Ralph Fiennes credit for the size of his balls. Not only does he make his directorial debut adapting Shakespeare, but he does so with one of the Bard's lesser known plays and one that has never previously been filmed. That takes chutzpah.

One of Shakespeare's tragedies, Coriolanus is set in ancient Rome. The title character is a gung-ho general in the army, happy to charge into fierce battle with his men and with a prideful disdain for the common citizens. Events take a turn for the worse when Coriolanus is pimped up for a place on the Senate and two slippery types decide to turn the people against him. He is banished from the city; from the home he has fought and bled for and surrenders himself to the city's great enemies, to help them overthrow the Roman people. Through prideful vengeance he turns on the people of his home and visits ruination upon them.

So, it is a play with a lot to it; with a lot of meaty themes to chew over. And Fiennes updates the setting to modern times; to a modern Rome as an obvious stand-in for the United States. He makes ample use of CNN and "action-news" style cutaways to cover a lot of exposition. But where, say Baz Luhrmann invested his retelling of Romeo & Juliet with fizz and glam, Fiennes keeps things sombre.

Frankly, I've never really been a big fan of the Bard. Perhaps that is thanks to years of dreary high-school and University lectures and monotone recitations by students who don't understand the language. But in a film like Fiennes', and with the mouths of such skilful actors as Fiennes, Vanessa Redgrave and Brian Cox playing with the poetry, the language truly flows and lives.

I don't really know if the rest of the film does though. The story seems almost too big for the film. I know this will be seen as an impossible heresy by some, but I couldn't help thinking that this would have been better with the story used as a jumping-off point for a miniseries or TV series. In this way, the modern setting could be more fully embraced and there could be more time to delve into these characters and their lives. Coriolanus is not the most sympathetic character around - he is prideful, vengeful and full of contempt for those ordinary citizens who make up the masses but fight in no army. But there is much to intrigue about him - his anger is understandable, he has a domineering mother constantly pushing at him and he has little interest in parading himself and his wounds to "prove" his service to Rome. He is a complex and intriguing, but haughtily unsympathetic, tragic figure.

Coriolanus is an interesting adaptation that so very nearly works. And again, the sheer stones on that man Fiennes. 

Quick review: THE SWELL SEASON (World Cinema Showcase)

The small indie musical Once made waves around the world; I still vividly remember the impact it had on me at the time. A tale of deep, thwarted love the film still had a happy ending with the reportedly blossoming relationship between the two leads, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova.

They started seeing one another and touring with their band, the Swell Season. This documentary is a telling of these two people's lives after their phenomenal success (including an Oscar win for Best Original Song) and the strain in places on their relationship.

As they both struggle to redefine themselves in terms of their new-found fame they're also touring, being overwhelmed by fans and waking up in new cities. While Hansard, after years of struggling and working as a musician, seems to take to the exposure like an Irishman to whisky, Irglova finds herself struggling to maintain some sort of sense of identity. It's easy to forget how young she was (19-20) and how unlooked for the fame was. She never comes across as precocious or resentful, but intelligent about her own feelings about it. Which, unsurprisingly, Hansard simply doesn't understand.

At times it all feels a little voyeuristic as you watch this relationship, this relationship that seemed like such a real-life romantic fairytale (with music!), collapse in on itself. Footage from the road is interspersed with interviews and concerts. The interviews span a term of years with no clear indication given as to when or what stage of the relationship they're given. The clearest indicator of the intervening years is Hansard's shaggy hair and beard (or lack thereof). The bias, if any in the film, really leans more towards Hansard. There are interviews with his family (including his now deceased father) and more time spent with him and his backstory. Irglova is more generally defined in terms of how she relates to Hansard and his story.

I haven't revisited the film Once since I first saw it, and it may be some time before I do. The Swell Season was an interesting follow-up to the story, with a fair amount to recommend it, but I wonder how entirely necessary it was.