On You Were Never Really Here

Lynne Ramsey’s forth feature is a violent, predominately aural experience with a powerful, close to silent performance by Joaquin Phoenix. The underlying theme is one of child abuse and the devastating affects this can have in later life. Phoenix’s Joe is, it is loosely hinted, a veteran of recent wars who has, indirectly caused the death of a young civilian. More vivid is the abuse Joe suffered as a child, disturbingly shown via the hands of his father, faceless but sadistic. These are the reasons for his current adult state; a hired gun who has found a niche brutally killing the abusers of children. The repeated sounds of a child counting connect Joe with Nina, a young girl he saves once from the hands of a paedophilic ring of government officials. When he comes to save her again he finds his own trauma of child abuse writ in the actions of this young girl who has herself become a violent murderer, albeit of those most deserving of death. Here, abused children become damaged adults. It is those who Joe kills (child abusers) and how he kills (with a hammer, the same tool used on him as a child) that prevents his actions from becoming unconscionable.

Although Ramsey’s film is wrought with violence that is overtly aggressive, we see very little in detail. It is the use of sound which makes this both an uncomfortable and dream like experience. Joe’s mental damage is highlighted through the layering of voices and the exaggerated background noises that intrude upon the audience and Joe’s thoughts. At other times the music is hypnotic and peaceful. It is on this latter theme that You Were Never Really Here ends. A note of hope as Nina and Joe, fresh from drinking milkshakes and a vision of suicide (another repeated image) decide it is a beautiful day.

On Annihilation

Alex Garland has been quick to express his disappointment that his latest film, Annihilation did not, in the UK, receive a cinematic release, but instead ended up on Netflix. His dissatisfaction is understandable as it is a visually impressive piece of work, but at the same time, he is working at a time when the industry is being turned upside down. Netflix are now at the table and able to compete for all titles. What has happened to Annihilation is a downside of this, but the content they produce themselves, that may not be made elsewhere, is the obvious upside.

Annihilation is haunting. Dreamlike. Hard to forget. It could be said to be within the science fiction or fantasy genre, but its approach and execution feel fresh and it would be hard to place it in either canon. Not too unlike Arrival (2016). It is a smart film, with a script that demands attention and pays it back with an ending that is unpredictable, subtle and tender, with just a hint of danger. A truly outstanding piece of work.

On Black Panther

It is not uncommon to find the villain of a piece more entertaining than the good guy. Actors have repeatedly said that villains are more fun to play as it allows them to tap into emotions and actions that would be impossible to imagine in everyday life. It is in this area where Black Panther both succeeds and fails.

The villain of the piece is Erik Killmonger, a terrible name that serves to demonise him as a reason to justify his death for justification is not found in his character. For unlike say, Batman and the Joker, the latter being more entertaining to watch, but morally corrupt and unquestionably unable to carry on, Erik is Black Panther's moral superior. He represents the struggle of black people from slavery through to the Los Angeles ghetto. He has lost his father, a man who wished to usurp the Wakanda monarchy and been punished for actions that weren't his. He has been raised by the state and fell into the army, where killing has given him life; it should be his film. Rather the film belongs to a wealthy, spoiled king in waiting who, with every disposable advantage helps others only if it helps himself. His is James Bond with a panther suit.

Of course it is good to see Marvel take their films into Africa and promote an image of heroism that has for too long dominated. But, there was a real possibility here to create a film that was radical and challenging to the American hegemony. There are scenes here which haven't been seen in the genre before, but all too many that have and Black Panther becomes the blue print that all other Marvel films fit to.

It is telling that Black Panther is absent from the film for a significant amount of time without the narrative suffering; he is a boring character. In Erik the film has created an interesting characters to try and explore the lives of young, black men in America. It is a shame that the film must ghettoise him to an extreme, and demonise his killings while serving in the army just to try and force moral corruptness on to him. And, let us not even get started on the heroism of the white, CIA agent, a member of an organisation that has sought to create instability in the continent for decades.

A missed opportunity.

Reflections on Breakfast at Tiffany's

This 1961 film directed by Blake Edwards and starring Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard feels at once incredibly modern and out of touch to contemporary eyes. The Mickey Rooney character is flagrantly racist and that his Japanese character adds little to the narrative, with his ethnicity being irrelevant makes the decision to cast the white actor even more uncomfortable. Sadly this is an issue Hollywood still struggles with. Claims of whitewashing were levelled at Matt Damon and the makers of The Great Wall (2016) and Ed Skrein resigned his role from the upcoming Hellboy for being cast in an Asian role. 

Much of Tiffany's is about identity, or the loss of it. Names become interchangeable, initialed, not given or lost entirely as the self appointed Holly Golightly searches for her place in a world that doesn't know what to do with her. As a representation of women, the character of Golightly feels free today and must have been a rarity in the 60s; she is unpredictable, constantly in flux, unwilling to accept being pigeonholed and chameleon like in her approach to survival; whether it is visiting a convict for money or preparing to be royalty in Brazil.

Yet, her happiness is rooted to a man. Perhaps even her survival. She is unwilling to be caged and therefore marriage must be on her terms. She is either unable or unwilling to secure a man who will challenge and dominate her and her story concludes by accepting the passive man, the man who has been dominated by women before and offers himself up as her second. In this we can see echoes of Emma Stone's character in La La Land (2015). A complicated character, unwilling to sacrifice any control in a relationship, instead choosing a marriage of convenience for her. 

It is undeniably a stylish film, a fun film and has something to say about gender roles in a decade that is defined by its contribution to feminist thinking. 

On Downsizing

​It is difficult to disagree with the message that Downsizing so precisely presents. One that we are slowly, but surely exhausting the earth's natural resources while contributing waste at an exponential rate. The combination of both requiring drastic solutions. This is where we find Downsizing early on, at a scientific conference where the drastic solution is being presented. There is much humour in this first third as it focuses on the process of downsizing, or getting small, and the level of detail that the writers have gone to in considering how such a procedure might be made realistic is impressive.  

As the film progresses and the humour moves aside for a closer examination of human responsibility, Downsizing explores some very interesting questions and seeks, in its detail, at times a scientific seeming script to provide answers. Regardless of the impossibility of the technology, the script, like many episodes of Black Mirror (2011 - ), feels well researched. This detail at times also bogs the film down in the actual, rather than taking more interesting or adventurous paths into the fantastical. Not that the film should attempt to be less realistic, especially after the work has been put in to root the film in a realistic base, but once it establishes its protagonist's journey, it sticks closely to this and, as a result, feels a little too long and predictable. 

Where a more interesting narrative thread may have taken the film is in the brief mention of the inevitable exploitation of the technology. The social inequality that exists in Leisure World (the premier small city) is an apt and important comment for the context of the film, but one we've seen before, even in Matt Damon's canon with 2013's Elysium. Early on, the film briefly touches on the technology being used by governments to punish, with a Vietnamese dissident becoming a character that reflects, but never really explores this. Moving further down such a path may have provided a more interesting narrative, where crime and race could have been addressed alongside the main message of environmental damage, which is set up so well at the start that it doesn't have to be addressed again.

There is a technology here that could lead to a darker tale, and a darker film that would benefit from the hands of a Charlie Brooker or José Saramago. Payne has taken the option of creating a safer, less critical film. One that is kinder on humanity than perhaps we deserve. 

On Hostiles

Much like his last film as a director, 2015’s Black Mass, Scott Cooper’s new film Hostiles is aware of its genre’s history and is careful to create an accurate and attractive mise-en-scene. Yet, also like Black Mass, it is a shallow film, replete with scenes that have been masterly shot, performances that are expertly delivered and grand, sweeping statements about life, destiny and our place in the world that more often than not fall flat as the groundwork into consistent character development hasn’t been achieved. Cooper’s characters are walking quotes, not real people.

The title, rather than referring to one specific enemy refers, it is assumed, to all men as well as the environment. Bale’s army captain, we are regularly reminded is equal to the most violent of Native Americans. Surely, there is a potent and relevant comment to be made here, yet Hostiles paints him as heroic while stressing his violent, immoral and illegal acts. Bale can carry great depth with the slightest of movements, but he can’t smooth over the glaring contradiction in his character.

Occupying the same territory as Cormac McCarthy’s brutal novel about the Indian Wars, Blood Meridian, Hostiles never delivers on its promise of threat. Instead, the death of almost all involved is delivered with more style than substance. From the shocking opening to the brutal, but off screen ending, Hostiles takes pleasure in showing the real violence of the time and the setting, but neglects to populate it with real people.

Despite these character inconsistencies, Hostiles is a film that moves comfortably at a slow pace and pays respect to its environment by framing it wonderfully. It is, at times, a gorgeous film. But, westerns need to say more on the important issues they explore rather than complete a tick box of genre conventions.

The Top 10 of 2017

The Thew Reviews' Top Ten of 2017


La La Land dir. Damien Chazelle written by Damien Chazelle

Jackie dir. Pablo Larraín written by Noah Oppenheim

Get Out dir. Jordan Peele written by Jordan Peele

Blade Runner 2049 dir. Denis Villeneuve written by Hampton Fancher & Michael Green

Call Me By Your Name dir. Luca Guadagnino written by James Ivory

Wind River dir. Taylor Sheridan written by Taylor Sheridan

Detroit dir. Kathryn Bigelow written by Mark Boal

Dunkirk dir. Christopher Nolan written by Christopher Nolan

Manchester By The Sea dir. Kenneth Lonergan written by Kenneth Lonergan

Moonlight dir. Barry Jenkins written by Barry Jenkins