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 Miller is equally successful with Moneyball, although the landscape has changed considerably and been replaced by the cold, bright sterile walls of a baseball stadium.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.

On Missing the Target in The Rum Diary

Johnny Depp plays a journalist named Kemp whilst channelling his friend and novelist, the late Hunter S Thompson. The Rum Diary (based on Thompson’s novel) follows Kemp to Puerto Rico and to a failing newspaper. The idea of a newspaper in decline is the first point of real interest that the film deals with on a surface level only in favour of poorly directed jokes about the effects and after effects of drink and drugs. The second point, ignored for the purpose of more bad jokes, is that of the American Dream. In one brief scene Depp’s character and his editor discuss how Puerto Rico, as part of America, is where people come to achieve the elusive and essentially mythic, American Dream. At the same time as rich Americans come in to build the dream, poor Puerto Ricans live in squalor. These two ideas could have been combined with the story of a journalist drawn in by the magic of the dream, only to realise his errors and attempt to uncover the myth and at its core this is what The Rum Diary wants to be. Yet, for some reason, whether in editing or even earlier in pre production, the idea was taken to turn this into a booze and drug fest with the same unamusing joke replayed over and over without any real attempt to adapt it. The Hangover (2009) did this far more successfully and without the pretence of achieving something grander.

On Halcyon Days in Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris is the latest film from maybe the most prolific American director, Woody Allen. With this much output, there’s going to be hits and misses. Midnight in Paris is the former. Woody Allen films have a niche audience, with the occasional crossover, such as Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008). Midnight in Paris seems set to remain within that niche audience of loyal Woody Allen films. Not only does it have the expected collection of neurotic characters, but through its time travelling concept, boasts a list of personalities only a graduate of English literature and art history could recognise; Hemingway, Dali, Man Ray, Fitzgerald. Essentially, without a pretty good knowledge of the Parisian art scene in the 1920s, much of the film’s references and humour will be missed.

Fortunately, the film has something else going on, something universally applicable. The idea of halcyon idyll. What if life in the past was better? This is something many often consider and the film uses its central protagonist to address this well. Allen clearly has an affinity for the past as he makes the present so unattractive, especially the Tea Party Republican parents in law. Yet, Allen also takes care to remind us that living in the past can only be a hobby and that appreciation of the present is the only way to be happy. The idea roots the film and gives it an accessibility that many would struggle to find amongst the art culture name-dropping.

On The Ides of March

The Ides of March is a political thriller the likes of which are not often seen at the cinema in the last two decades. The film does not pander to an uninformed audience, but maintains a superb pace and level of tension so that any audience would be enraptured by this tale of warring democratic presidential nominees.

The biggest coup that George Clooney as director has pulled here is populating his film with an excellent cast. From Clooney himself as the Obama like candidate with a dirty past to the protagonist, Ryan Gosling, the optimistic, young media mind with a ruthless streak, the acting is magnificent. And that is not even mentioning the always fantastic Philip Seymour Hoffman, who here grounds the film from escaping into melodrama with his restrained passion. Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood and Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, all excellent.

To strip the film back and just look at the story is to reveal weaknesses. There are some scenes that feel far too contrived and the ending, while appropriately downbeat and ambiguous, still feels unsatisfying. The smaller plot stands prove far more tantalising and offer more affecting twists and turns. The development between Gosling and Giamatti’s character is fantastic and unexpected. Fortunately for the larger story Clooney’s direction is assured and his awareness of audience is second to none. The manner in which the characters lives are allowed to unfold ensures the pace is perfect and the suspense rises and falls, playing the audience like spin-doctors play the voters. Although this should come as no surprise from a director who has given us the excellent, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) and Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) and the fun, if slightly misjudged, Leatherheads (2008).

The ides of March refers to the day Caesar was murdered by those closest to him. There may be no murder here – not of Caesar, anyway – but there is an inner circle and there is betrayal and this proves a welcome return for the political thriller and makes one nostalgic for the 1970s, a decade which produced such films with prolificacy.

On Making the Most of 3D with The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

Just when it seemed that 3D was waning, with a contribution from a string of poorly written, poorly directed and poorly acted films, made strictly because the technology exists (never a good idea), comes a film that uses 3D to its potential. The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn directed by Spielberg and produced by Peter Jackson, with a script by three British writers, Joe Cornish, Edgar Wright and Steven Moffat. Not since Avatar (2009) has a (non Pixar) film used 3D to its full potential. In addition to the well constructed, exciting action sequences you’d expert from Spielberg, the director uses the motion capture animation, combined with the 3D to create scenes that merge into each other. A puddle on a Belgian street becomes a desert with Tintin and Captain Haddock walking through; a bottle becomes a telescope as past and present stories are beautifully combined. Where The Adventures of Tintin raises the bar is with its well written story and characters worth investing in. It doesn’t have the adult crossover that recent and really great films have had (again, see Pixar), but it does possess a lot of old school style charm that many adults will enjoy. The speed in which the action sequences arrive can be dizzying; there is little time to consider the characters, only enjoy them, but fortunately the story is well delivered and easy to follow, despite the barrage of visual information. The Adventures of Tintin has Spielberg written all over it and there is plenty of promise here to warrant excitement for part two, directed by Peter Jackson.