On Fincher's Version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

In 2005 Stieg Larsson's book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was published. Within six years there have been two feature films made of Larsson's book. The first in 2009 directed by Neils Arden Oplev and the second released this year and directed by David Fincher. This proliferation of the same story has resulted in a unusual situation in that both feature films have told the same story and at the same time both been completely enthralling. Fincher's narrative differs little from Oplev, yet Fincher's mise-en-scene is sharper, colder, more stylish and overall more appropriate to this brutal story. The cast is impressive as are their performances, yet as in Oplev's film the role of Lisbeth, this time played by Rooney Mara, stands out for its complicated portrayal of the young woman living on the edges of society. Dragon Tattoo was the first in Larsson's Millennium trilogy. Oplev's second and third adaptations were less well received than the first. It remains to be seen whether Fincher will tackle the other stories and if so, how he will adapt them.

On Something Special in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the fourth in the franchise and this time out is directed by Brad Bird who comes with Pixar pedigree. This makes the lack of coherence in the story even more confusing as Pixar films are so beautifully told and structured. This lack of a clear narrative harks back to the first Mission: Impossible (1996) and means that the third, Mission: Impossible III (2006), remains the best of the franchise.

Despite this problem, Ghost Protocol still boasts something incredible. Midway through the film the IMF team must infiltrate the Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai. The tallest building in the world. To do this, Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt scales the outside, using hi-tech adhesive gloves. This is one of the best uses of special effects seen this year. That is to say, if it is a special effect. The scene is so effective as you watch Cruise climb, run down, fall down and crash into the outside of the tower that whatever (if any) SFX were used are invisible and this is maybe the best use of computer technology in film this year (The Social Network (2010) did the same thing with the 'twin effect'). We can all watch Hugo (2011) or Jurassic Park (1995) and be amazed by the film and the advancement of the technology, but the fact that we are acknowledging it means it is noticeable and this is not a bad thing. But perhaps the greatest compliment that can be paid to Ghost Protocol is that it isn't even clear if special effects have been used. It is well known that Tom Cruise enjoys performing stunts, it just seems unlikely he'd be allowed to do something so dangerous. This set piece, especially in IMAX, is incredible and the Mission: Impossible franchise remains more entertaining than the stale, familiar Bond films, but way off the pace of Bourne.

On the Small Problems in Another Earth

Another Earth is a big picture film. Not in terms of budget, but in terms of concept. Another planet earth is discovered, a duplicate to our own where everyone is identical except for when they first noticed the second planet, at which point their ‘other’ took another life trajectory. This is what the film industry would refer to as a high concept film. And it is this concept and our desire to see its dénouement that keeps us interested. Unfortunately, while being a big picture film, Another Earth often forgets to take care of the little things. The film has the look and feel of a student film; the close ups of people and the lingering shots of dust lack meaning and suggest an inability to form a coherent structure; the acting is also often unnatural when attempting to deal with the bigger themes being exposed. There is also a lack of natural character development and instead the film relies on the second planet, always a present feature in the sky, to fill or distract us from these small problems. However, the film does have a hold over us because it asks one very interesting question and poses it in a unique way. It simply fails to deliver on its concept.

On the Magic of Hugo

Filmmakers have always been attracted to making films about films and the history of the medium. With Hugo, Martin Scorsese, his writer John Logan and the rest of the crew may have created one of the best. There is so much to praise in Hugo, including the 3D (it is perhaps the best use of the technology to date). However, there is one feature that is especially impressive and could only be achieved by a true cine-literate and someone with absolute confident and knowledge of their craft.

As much of Hugo as possible should be a surprise, therefore without going too much into the story, the film looks at some key moments from cinema history (the Lumiere Brothers’ film of a train coming into a station, Melies Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902)) and how the audience responded to what was a completely unique medium. As can be imagined, early audience responses were those of disbelief and edge of the seat excitement. What Scorsese achieves magnificently is when he recreates these responses with a modern audience, aided in no small part by his employment of 3D.

An example: Hugo’s child protagonists are watching an early Harold Lloyd silent film, Safety Last (1923). In the clip we see, Lloyd is forced out the window of a high-rise building and ends up dangling dangerously above the street below. Even for a modern audience this scene is edge of the seat exciting. For a 1923 audience is must have appeared terrifying. Towards the end of Hugo, the titular star must hide from his antagonist by hiding out the window of a tower clock, with the streets of Paris below. In 3D the snow swirls and the streets look hazardously far away as Hugo precariously dangles from the clock hand. We find ourselves having the same reaction that a 1923 audience would have had to Harold Lloyd’s stunt and at the same time we find ourselves admiring this wonderful film for the magic that it pays homage to and creates.

On Moneyball

Moneyball is the second feature from director Bennett Miller who is responsible for the excellent Capote (2005). With Capote, Miller displayed a fantastic ability to evolve his characters through settings. In Capote it was the cramped, artistic corridors of bohemian New York juxtaposed with the wide-open, bleak landscape of middle America. Miller is equally successful with Moneyball, although the landscape has changed considerably and been replaced by the cold, bright sterile walls of a baseball stadium.

Moneyball tells the story of how Oakland A's general manager, Billy Beane, along with an economics graduate in his first job, attempted to even the scales of financial inequality in baseball by turning the scouting system into a statistical process. Unlike other sports films, like Raging Bull (1980) and Ali (2001), Moneyball isn’t about a sports personality, but about sport and this makes it feel fresh as well as fascinating. Even if an audience did not like baseball, the story is relevant across many sports and the excitement generated transcends the sport.

The acting is fantastic and in middle age Brad Pitt is proving one of America’s finest actors. As Billy Beane he is fully rounded and plays the general manager with the right amount of arrogance, anxiety and pathos. Miller’s direction ensures we understand Beane as the man we see through integrating scenes of his youth. Not too mention, Miller has a great eye for how to make a shot stylish.

Considering the subject matter, you would not think that Moneyball would be such an engrossing film, but it is one of the most watchable films of the year.

On Take Shelter

Take Shelter is an American film, written and directed by Jeff Nichols. The film follows the life of a small town family man struggling with a form of schizophrenia that he is acutely aware of but unable to prevent. This level of realism that is applied here makes this story a fresh and fascinating approach to mental illness. The title not only metaphorically refers to the nature in which the protagonist tries to hide from and prevent what he sees as an inevitable fall into schizophrenia (a disease his mother suffered from), but also to the bomb shelter in his back garden, which becomes the tangible object on to which he expends his growing uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty that plagues the mind of the protagonist is that of a coming apocalyptic storm; again another reference to the title. Even though the film deals with a very specific mental illness that manifests itself in ways that require some special effects, the film is rooted in a realism that spans familial adversity and financial worries, an increasingly relevant metaphor for the coming storm we see in horrifying detail. Fortunately for Nichols, he found two of America’s best working actors to tell this story. Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain are both incredibly capable of communicating a range of emotions with the slightest of movements. And, with the slow long takes in which Nichols frames his film, his actors are given space and time to grab the audience and drag them into this engrossing story. Take Shelter is one of the finest American film of the year.