Monday 29 January 2018

Downsizing (2017)

As a teenager, I read an awful lot of science fiction. I had a library ticket that (I think) allowed me to borrow five books at a time. I always borrowed up to my limit, and normally read everything I had borrowed before next visiting the library.

We used to go once a week.

At the time, I read principally science fiction and fantasy - the occasional thriller, but largely I read in those two genres. That meant that I was exposed to the science fiction greats (Arthur C Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Philip K. Dick), the not-so-well-known-out-of-science-fiction-circles (Poul Anderson, Clifford D Simak, Theodore Sturgeon), along with some names that barely anyone has ever read (and whose names I've long forgotten).

Watching Downsizing felt like a return to those days of cramming my brain with those tales. It makes only a few concessions to actual science (mostly consisting of - scientists have figured out a way to ...), which fits perfectly with those pulpy tales when a strange gas with shrinking properties could cause a man to reduce to subatomic size.

For being able to rekindle that sense of wonder, I probably view Downsizing far more favourably than it really deserves. Although it's an entertaining pieces, with the performances being at worst bizarre, but never actually bad, the story is unfortunately all over the place. It's second half is written as if the author had too many ideas of where the story could go that he decided to throw them all at the screen and see if anything stuck.

There is a sense of a personal journey for the lead character, one that finds some degree of resolution, but it's a film which asks a lot of questions that it then largely ignores. Which is a shame, because any one of them could have been an interesting film in its own right.

Tuesday 23 January 2018

The Post (2017)

I'm not always a fan of Steven Spielberg's attempts at serious filmmaking. Certainly he has his successes (Schindler's List being the obvious example), but there are a number of films that I've struggled to watch (still haven't made it past the first ten minutes of Lincoln).

The Post had every chance of being a well-intentioned, but ultimately dull failure, thrown together in a hurry to act as a cinematic reproach to the tactics of the current White House.

It's not.

Aside from being a timely reminder of the importance (and fragility) of the concept of Freedom of the Press, The Post is also a stunning piece of collaborative filmmaking.

It looks and sounds like an artifact from the 1970s. The colour grading, camera movements, and editing give the appearance (for the most part) of something contemporary with All the President's Men (in a restored condition). The score by John Williams is also in keeping with the sounds of that decade.

There's also an authenticity to the recreation of newspaper publishing in the 1970s. Having toured a newspaper (The Guardian) in the early '80s, I was pleased to see that The Post managed to show us almost everything that was covered during that tour (although it missed explaining stereotypes - so marks off for that one). 

The quality of the acting is also superb, and again would not feel out of place in a '70s political-thriller. Meryl Streep's portrayal of Katharine Graham and her character's growth throughout the film is a note-perfect performance, and Tom Hanks manages to merge into his character in a way that you forget he's Tom Hanks. The rest of the cast are no slouches in their roles either.

There's at least one misstep in the film though where the characters have a discussion about the importance of the press that's a bit too on-the-nose explaining why the sometimes-wrong-press is still vitally important, but those issues are minor. For the most part the script and the storytelling are spot on.


Tuesday 16 January 2018

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) (with some SPOILERS)

... will not be my pick for Best Picture at the Oscars, BAFTAs, or any other film award.

As a piece of entertainment, it kept me interested throughout - although frequently my credulity was strained - can a cop in the USA really throw a man out of a second-floor window, punch a woman in the face, and then proceed to kick the defenestrated man in full view of his newly arrived superior (who is painted as the justice-minded clean broom) and a street full of witnesses, and fail to suffer no consequences beyond losing his job?

There are a multitude of other events that pass with no consequences - in fact the only person who faces any form of legal consequences is the character who is locked up for possession of marijuana.

It's well shot, the dialogue decently written, the characters interesting (although hardly true to life) and well-acted, the comedy sporadic and often crude but usually funny (if you haven't already caught most of the best jokes in the trailer), and sporadically violent (and shuddersome - particularly with the dentist drill scene).

However, the fact that I couldn't believe the cause-but-no-effect approach to the storytelling, which pulled me out of the world of the film knocks several points off the film. If it had been an out-and-out comedy then I could have coped with that, but the story is a mix of black comedy with straight drama, which means I needed a little more verisimilitude.



Thursday 11 January 2018

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)



There will be spoilers ...

I've held off on writing about The Last Jedi, largely because I've been waiting for all the fuss to die down: it's the worst Star Wars film ever; it's the best Star Wars film ever; it's doing terribly at the box office; it's doing wonderfully at the box office.

Whatever.

Even the supporters of the film claim that it's not perfect - although they can't seem to agree on what's wrong with it. Was it Leia's spacewalk? Was it the humour? Was it the characterisation of Luke? Was it the Canto Bight sequence? Was it the fact that the majority of the lead characters are either female, or ethnic minorities (or, shock horror, both)?

Setting my cards on the table, I enjoyed the film a lot. I've seen it four times and it didn't get stale with the repeat viewings (I'm not sure I want to risk a fifth right now though).

I also think that it's a better film than many are willing to credit - although surprisingly (or perhaps not) the critics seem to be in agreement with me.

I have a theory. Actually, I have a couple.

The first is that critics view movies differently than the regular viewer. Not because they're smarter, not because they're watching a film with the intent of writing about it, but because they see more films and they see a wider selection than anyone else.

I visited the cinema 144 times last year (for 116 films) - and I don't even come close to seeing what those guys do, but what I've discovered is that my appreciation of narrative rhythm has shifted.

Mainstream Hollywood films usually follow a relatively straightforward rhythm. Move away from the big budget releases, and you get different rhythms - and if you're not used to that then it can feel wrong because you're being wrong-footed all the time by your expectations not being met.

I think Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was a film that fell into the category of playing a different rhythm. The first time I saw it, I thought the plot was all over the place - it took a second viewing for me to properly appreciate what James Gunn was doing with it.

I think The Last Jedi falls into that field. The oft-criticised Canto Bight sequence feels out-of-place (at least on first viewing) because it is thematically-driven rather than being event driven. Watch the film a few more times though, and it doesn't feel as jarring.

My second theory is that if you've only seen the film once, you miss some of the nuances, which leads to the drawing of any number of incorrect conclusions.

Luke's eventual fate seems to come out of the blue for many, but it's actually telegraphed early on by a line of dialogue.

Yoda's destruction of the Jedi texts was seen as the director condemning the Jedi, of a criticism of the previous films - the Jedi are all failures - but it's the very opposite - it's the redemption. The (blink and you miss it) revelation that Rey has taken the texts with her; Yoda's point that failure is an important lesson are statements that the failure of the Jedi (particularly in the prequels) is not a reason to regard them as useless, but a point from which to build are redemptive moments, not destructive ones.

On the whole, I think it's a more thoughtful film than it might first appear - but it also requires a bit of thought on behalf of the audience to appreciate it for what it is, not what they think it should be.

Now reach out. What do you see?

Hong Kong Railway Museum

For a little bit of context, I've been fascinated by trains for most of my life. I can't make any claim to being a true fanatic - my...