When: 2012, Bale's 40th film
Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan
Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies. They reviewed the second movie of the series, The Dark Knight, for the current list.
KATE SAYS this is a very, very good movie that could have been a great one.
I say more positive stuff at the end, so if you want to skip the negative, skip to the paragraph beginning what makes the movie work.
(WARNING: While I don't give away the movie's surprises, my review does give away many plot points; if you want to see The Dark Knight Rises entirely unspoiled, skip down to "Mike's review.)
What keeps this movie from being great: Bane’s unclear motivation.
Bane starts out as a terrorist with a general, philosophical, short-range agenda who becomes a warlord with a specific, personal, long-range goal.
Terrorism is devastating. Part of its devastation is that it does not lend itself to long-range goals. Consider 9/11 which occurred after at least one failed attempt, was carried out by a limited number of terrorists, partly failed (the one airplane did not reach its target), and involved no long-term end game (the terrorists did not plan to live long enough to occupy any portion of the United States). The mastermind behind it did not participate; and New York City and Washington D.C. continued to function as cities during and after the crisis, recovering in a very short period of time.
Such acts of pure malice, as movie fans have recently seen, are almost always cruel, purposeless, and nihilistic with no long-term constructive goals (and thank goodness for those willing to identify and condemn such acts). In many ways, Nolan successfully explored this type of random malice in The Dark Knight.
Bane, however, is a different type of villain. As a terrorist, he is rather implausible; Ra`s Al Gul’s limp philosophy is not enough to convince people to die (as Bane’s followers do in droves).
Bane as warlord is far more plausible, except he’s given no motivation (at the beginning of the film) for adopting such a role.
This is where Nolan’s approach to story-telling gets me a trifle irritated: Bane is given a plausible, strong, and interesting motivation . . . at the end of the movie. His motivation is treated as a big surprise. (It isn’t that big a surprise—especially to anyone who has some familiarity with the Batman story.) If the plausible, strong, and interesting motivation had instead been provided at the beginning of the film, Bane's story arc not only would have made more sense, it would have strengthened/brought together the disparate arcs.
As it is, I spent most of the movie, thinking, This doesn’t make much sense. Without the personal touch (which Batman Begins does have), the villain is kind of blah.
What makes the movie work is (1) Nolan is honestly more interested in heroes than villains; this makes him a refreshing change from, say, Burton, who seemed almost pathologically disinterested in his heroes in favor of his villains; (2) the CITY is the hero/main protagonist, not a person.
With Gotham City as main protagonist, Gordon and the cops (John Blake) become major players in a way that I’ve never seen in any Batman franchise. This is very cool (Joseph G-L, by the way, has grown into a downright fascinating actor—the next time we do an actor portfolio, Mike, we’ll have to choose him! and then someone like Nicole Kidman to even out the genders).
Gotham as city-state under siege is also accurate. I felt almost like I was watching a war-movie except Nolan prefers to focus on individuals, not nations. Once placed under siege, Gotham functions quite plausibly; the fact that Bane and his goons can’t be everywhere at once; the pockets of resistance; the everyday life of the “ordinary” citizen; the kangaroo courts (nice cameo in this section!). More than any director I’ve seen, Nolan really explains the underlying problem with the whole “we are the 99%” philosophy. Infrastructures, including infrastructures run by supposedly evil rich people, keep civilization afloat. Fact is: Anarchy stinks.
Nolan makes us understand why it stinks. And Selina Kyle’s character development—in the face of so-called revolution—bears a strong Nolan touch. (By the way, major kudos to grown-up Anne Hathaway for selling the part.)
Changing tone completely—
The Bruce Wayne arc seems to take place outside the other arcs, for the very good reason that it takes place outside the other arcs. It is interesting in its own right, but the switch between the Gotham City arcs (which include Gordon, Selina, and the cops) and the Bruce Wayne arcs (which include Bruce, Alfred, and Ra`s) is a tad awkward. The ending of The Dark Knight Rises is epic but unlike in The Dark Knight, the disparate arcs do not completely come together at the end (though I do prefer the former movie to the latter).
The movie is absolutely worth seeing in a theater! Nolan is trying to do so much, and he comes so close, and the notes he does get right are so right on, this really isn’t a movie you want to waste on a home theater system.
And thematically, what Nolan has to say about HOW to be a hero, what to aim for, the connection to life and death as well as risk and hope is truly profound. I found this movie far more uplifting than The Dark Knight. "Rises" is the operative word, and it reoccurs thematically in a number of segments--from Blake's belief in Batman to Gordon's belief that Bane should be resisted to the chant of the men in the pit.
In some ways, Nolan is one of those director-philosophers who has so much to say, he can be excused for going on and on. There aren’t very many of these director types. (No, Lucas, you aren’t one of them.) But they do deserve a little latitude.
As for Christian Bale—he’s good, like always, but Oldman and Joseph G-L rise to the top. In a way, the movie encapsulates for the characters how I feel about the actors. But I won’t explain further—the movie does it for me.
MIKE SAYS one thought kept recurring to me when I left the theater: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is my new favorite actor. The Dark Knight Rises is the epic conclusion to an epic retelling of Batman and features career defining roles for almost everyone involved. Despite all this, JGL steals the show again and again as the optimistic and hopeful soul of Gotham.
The film combines several Batman story-lines, including "No Man's Land", "Knightfall", and "The Dark Knight Returns." Despite this, Nolan manages to meld these things together into something truly new and epic. The scope of the film is truly impressive and the stakes FEEL higher than any other comic movie to date, thanks to Nolan making the city feel alive and cohesive. Sure, saving the world is a big deal, but saving your home is much more intimate.
The story and its repercussions are so huge, the movie nearly bursts at the seams with the sheer amount of stuff it has to carry out. With this insane juggling act comes some rather slow transitions, which cause the movie to drag in some parts. The sad truth is that the film does have some flaws; despite this, the movie is amazing.
While I understand the cinematic importance of a "trilogy", I think the film might have worked better as a two-parter, the first part ending with Batman's defeat by Bane; the second picking up with his quest to return. If the film had been executed this way, I think it would have avoided the stilted progression of Bruce's story that Kate mentions.
If there was one sequence of the film that made me truly happy, it was the ending. Nolan brought the film to an emotionally satisfying, logical conclusion that stays true to the feel of Nolan's Batman universe. While trying to avoid blatant spoilers, I will say that it's satisfying to have a huge film franchise make story decisions on what works and NOT on shock factor.
Bale's Performance here is strong and enjoyable; yet the other actors in the film overpower him in sheer interest level. While Batman is the headliner of the series, Nolan really seems more interesting in telling the story of the fight for the soul of the city rather than the journey of Batman. Bale delivers a great, determined, and even haunted performance, but his role is ultimately not as interesting as Blake's. While I don't think this means JGL is a better actor (ok, I DO, but that's not my point), I think he just had better material to work with. My only critique about Bale's performance is the "stuffed nose" quality of Batman. The mask appears to both block his nose AND squeeze his lower face, giving a very unsophisticated look when the Batman speaks!
I think Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy may form the definitive exploration of what it means to be a hero, despite some missteps. I actually have a lot more I could talk about, but I don't want to ruin anything for potential viewers.
But one small spoiler I will discuss is a small disappointment: while I do love the Bat-suit introduced in the second movie, I really wish some small redesign had taken place to make the suit feel just a little fresh. The same suit features throughout the movie and while it does the job, commercialism has spoiled me to the point that I crave the "New Improved Model!," whether it's needed or not.
But again, I do have to stubbornly admit that even in this, Nolan refused to compromise on what would sell, and instead stayed true to the story, which is pretty new and improved when compared to most franchises out there.
Showing posts with label Christian Bale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Bale. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Dark Knight
When: 2008, Bale's 35th film
Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan
Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies.
Mike says watching The Dark Knight again in the aftermath of the giddy adventure that was Avengers is like getting a cute new puppy...and then finding out that your crazy neighbor ate it. While one is a fun and memorable experience, the other, while more emotionally potent, kinda takes the fun out of it.
Just to be clear, I love The Dark Knight. A universally accepted and loved (not to mention dramatically relevant) version of Batman was previously the high point of the past superhero-filled decade. After the two Shumacher movies, it was pretty gratifying to have such a serious take on Batman.
The trouble is, Avengers reminded us of just how much of a party superhero movies can be, revealing The Dark Knight as the guy brooding in the corner...which is pretty appropriate, now I think of it.
Despite its heavy tone, the film is still one of the most epic movies of the genre; while length certainly helps this, the journey of each character, and the scope of the film and setting, hearkens back to the epic films of the classic movie era. Sad to say, but The Dark Knight may be our generation's equivalent to The Ten Commandments.
My favorite thing is just how much film noir flavors the movie. Replace high-tech props with prohibition-era gadgets, and you'd have a 30's Gangster film with a much cooler detective. As Batman was created at the end of the 1930's, this is actually pretty appropriate.
Bale's performance is pretty impressive. While Batman's arc doesn't seem as large as that of the other characters, he still undergoes a journey from cautious hope to desperate sacrifice. While he definitely sports a different look in this film (the most telling sign is just how big the original Bat-suit is on him), he still pulls off a great Bruce Wayne/Batman: definitely the first actor to do so (meaning, previous actors usually are only good as Bruce OR Batman).
I love the look of the film as well; the updated Bat-suit is the first film version that I actually like. Batman's comic look features far more cloth, and I was never sold on the whole rubber look. The new, streamlined, agile suite really suits him better and requires far less of a jump in belief.
I enjoy the Joker, the retelling of Two-Face (Harvey Two-Face is SUCH a gangster name!), Michael Caine . . . everything but Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. While Katie Holmes didn't exactly make the role endearing, I could at least endure her. Gyllenhaal is downright annoying; her self-righteous and close-minded choice to cut ties with Bruce just makes the character's death that much more of a relief.
My only real regret in transitioning from this film to The Dark Knight Rises next week is the knowledge that the upcoming sequel was not what Nolan originally foresaw. The Joker was important and had definitely not made his last appearance. He will be missed in the coming film. Despite some Batman & Robin inspired fears, I AM getting excited for next week. I have some definite thoughts on what might happen, and they tend to go against the rampant rumors online.
My official call, which is COMPLETELY unsupported by anything floating around right now, is that Batman lives, Gordon-Levitt is just a cop, and the general public is going to be a tad disappointed because of that . . . at least at first.
But hey, at least we're finally free of Bat-nipples, right?
Kate says I’ve always found the Joker completely disturbing, so I wasn’t completely committed to seeing The Dark Knight when it came out; this review represents only my second viewing. (I am far more willing to see The Dark Knight Rises.)
The Joker does come with an intrinsic problem—why would so many hoodlums help him? Terrorists follow an ideology. The Joker has nothing to offer his followers in terms of belief or loyalty, and psychopathy isn’t THAT common (which is kind of Nolan’s point).
However, the Joker as chaos/anarchy/badness-for-the-sake-of-badness does help Nolan sell his theme: Batman as anti-hero is a symbol, the dark side of heroism where difficult choices have to be made, not everyone comes out alive, and some things just have to be endured. (Plus Heath Ledger as the Joker is far more impressive than Nicholson; anyone can act nuts; it takes real skill to be a nutty criminal who acts marginally sane while saying nutty things.)
I get back to Nolan's theme below, but first, the negative:
The movie is too long. I’ve begun to notice that Nolan’s way of storytelling is to start with a premise, then let it unwind. The result, on the one hand, is stories with a natural, real-world feel despite the sometimes fantastic backgrounds. On the other hand, Nolan’s movies kind of go on and on and on without any obvious goal. By the time I reached 1:20 minutes of The Dark Knight, I had to keep reminding myself, “This is the MID-way point. The movie has eighty minutes to go.”
In a way, this unending-saga-with-seemingly-no-structure feel is due to the Spiderman 3 problem: too many villains. The Dark Knight has Harvey Dent (Two-Face), the Mob, Joker. In order to make it unwind in a natural way, the movie HAS to be over 2 hours long.
This is unfortunate because while the first 1/2 of the movie is kind of random and slow, the last 1/2 of the movie is magnificent—suspenseful, unexpected, strongly underscored by good performances and Nolan’s theme. The final exchange between Batman and Gordon delivers a sense of true sacrifice. The scene where Lucius types in his name and sees that Wayne kept his promise brought tears to my eyes (I also love the part where Reese realizes that his employer saved him despite what he planned to do).
Unfortunately, the second part of the movie wouldn’t have worked without the groundwork of the first part—it’s a pity movies can’t be like operas used to be where the audience would get a program with background/bring-you-up-to-date notes, so movies could start in the middle.
I doubt I’ll watch The Dark Knight again, but there are a few other things I like about it: the move to Wayne Towers, which I think matches not only Nolan’s vision but Bale’s look much better than Wayne Manor.
And the cast. This isn’t just a fun, neat cast like in The Prestige; this is an unbelievably high quality cast all the way from the top stars down to the mobsters, including people like Ritchie Costner (as Chechen).
And Bale, of course, does a great job. He has acquired a spare, almost gaunt lankiness that makes him far more attractive than during his heart-throb days. He has also acquired a Gary Oldman quality.
Gary Oldman can morph into any role. He isn’t Gary Oldman; he is...whoever. I think Bale has reached that point. During The Dark Knight, while I never forgot that I was watching Bale (after all, I was reviewing the movie for this list!), I never felt that Bale was anything other than Batman/Bruce Wayne. This, frankly, is seldom true of other movie superheroes (though with Stark/Downey, Jr., the blend of actor with superhero is kind of the point). Bale has gained that Gary Oldman quality where the actor dissolves into the character—which is fairly impressive.
NEXT WEEK: Dark Knight Rises--our second theater review!!
Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan
Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies.
Mike says watching The Dark Knight again in the aftermath of the giddy adventure that was Avengers is like getting a cute new puppy...and then finding out that your crazy neighbor ate it. While one is a fun and memorable experience, the other, while more emotionally potent, kinda takes the fun out of it.
Just to be clear, I love The Dark Knight. A universally accepted and loved (not to mention dramatically relevant) version of Batman was previously the high point of the past superhero-filled decade. After the two Shumacher movies, it was pretty gratifying to have such a serious take on Batman.
The trouble is, Avengers reminded us of just how much of a party superhero movies can be, revealing The Dark Knight as the guy brooding in the corner...which is pretty appropriate, now I think of it.
Despite its heavy tone, the film is still one of the most epic movies of the genre; while length certainly helps this, the journey of each character, and the scope of the film and setting, hearkens back to the epic films of the classic movie era. Sad to say, but The Dark Knight may be our generation's equivalent to The Ten Commandments.
My favorite thing is just how much film noir flavors the movie. Replace high-tech props with prohibition-era gadgets, and you'd have a 30's Gangster film with a much cooler detective. As Batman was created at the end of the 1930's, this is actually pretty appropriate.
Bale's performance is pretty impressive. While Batman's arc doesn't seem as large as that of the other characters, he still undergoes a journey from cautious hope to desperate sacrifice. While he definitely sports a different look in this film (the most telling sign is just how big the original Bat-suit is on him), he still pulls off a great Bruce Wayne/Batman: definitely the first actor to do so (meaning, previous actors usually are only good as Bruce OR Batman).
I love the look of the film as well; the updated Bat-suit is the first film version that I actually like. Batman's comic look features far more cloth, and I was never sold on the whole rubber look. The new, streamlined, agile suite really suits him better and requires far less of a jump in belief.
I enjoy the Joker, the retelling of Two-Face (Harvey Two-Face is SUCH a gangster name!), Michael Caine . . . everything but Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. While Katie Holmes didn't exactly make the role endearing, I could at least endure her. Gyllenhaal is downright annoying; her self-righteous and close-minded choice to cut ties with Bruce just makes the character's death that much more of a relief.
My only real regret in transitioning from this film to The Dark Knight Rises next week is the knowledge that the upcoming sequel was not what Nolan originally foresaw. The Joker was important and had definitely not made his last appearance. He will be missed in the coming film. Despite some Batman & Robin inspired fears, I AM getting excited for next week. I have some definite thoughts on what might happen, and they tend to go against the rampant rumors online.
My official call, which is COMPLETELY unsupported by anything floating around right now, is that Batman lives, Gordon-Levitt is just a cop, and the general public is going to be a tad disappointed because of that . . . at least at first.
But hey, at least we're finally free of Bat-nipples, right?
Kate says I’ve always found the Joker completely disturbing, so I wasn’t completely committed to seeing The Dark Knight when it came out; this review represents only my second viewing. (I am far more willing to see The Dark Knight Rises.)
The Joker does come with an intrinsic problem—why would so many hoodlums help him? Terrorists follow an ideology. The Joker has nothing to offer his followers in terms of belief or loyalty, and psychopathy isn’t THAT common (which is kind of Nolan’s point).
However, the Joker as chaos/anarchy/badness-for-the-sake-of-badness does help Nolan sell his theme: Batman as anti-hero is a symbol, the dark side of heroism where difficult choices have to be made, not everyone comes out alive, and some things just have to be endured. (Plus Heath Ledger as the Joker is far more impressive than Nicholson; anyone can act nuts; it takes real skill to be a nutty criminal who acts marginally sane while saying nutty things.)
I get back to Nolan's theme below, but first, the negative:
The movie is too long. I’ve begun to notice that Nolan’s way of storytelling is to start with a premise, then let it unwind. The result, on the one hand, is stories with a natural, real-world feel despite the sometimes fantastic backgrounds. On the other hand, Nolan’s movies kind of go on and on and on without any obvious goal. By the time I reached 1:20 minutes of The Dark Knight, I had to keep reminding myself, “This is the MID-way point. The movie has eighty minutes to go.”
In a way, this unending-saga-with-seemingly-no-structure feel is due to the Spiderman 3 problem: too many villains. The Dark Knight has Harvey Dent (Two-Face), the Mob, Joker. In order to make it unwind in a natural way, the movie HAS to be over 2 hours long.
This is unfortunate because while the first 1/2 of the movie is kind of random and slow, the last 1/2 of the movie is magnificent—suspenseful, unexpected, strongly underscored by good performances and Nolan’s theme. The final exchange between Batman and Gordon delivers a sense of true sacrifice. The scene where Lucius types in his name and sees that Wayne kept his promise brought tears to my eyes (I also love the part where Reese realizes that his employer saved him despite what he planned to do).
Unfortunately, the second part of the movie wouldn’t have worked without the groundwork of the first part—it’s a pity movies can’t be like operas used to be where the audience would get a program with background/bring-you-up-to-date notes, so movies could start in the middle.
I doubt I’ll watch The Dark Knight again, but there are a few other things I like about it: the move to Wayne Towers, which I think matches not only Nolan’s vision but Bale’s look much better than Wayne Manor.
And the cast. This isn’t just a fun, neat cast like in The Prestige; this is an unbelievably high quality cast all the way from the top stars down to the mobsters, including people like Ritchie Costner (as Chechen).
And Bale, of course, does a great job. He has acquired a spare, almost gaunt lankiness that makes him far more attractive than during his heart-throb days. He has also acquired a Gary Oldman quality.
Gary Oldman can morph into any role. He isn’t Gary Oldman; he is...whoever. I think Bale has reached that point. During The Dark Knight, while I never forgot that I was watching Bale (after all, I was reviewing the movie for this list!), I never felt that Bale was anything other than Batman/Bruce Wayne. This, frankly, is seldom true of other movie superheroes (though with Stark/Downey, Jr., the blend of actor with superhero is kind of the point). Bale has gained that Gary Oldman quality where the actor dissolves into the character—which is fairly impressive.
NEXT WEEK: Dark Knight Rises--our second theater review!!
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
SciFi,
Superheroes
Friday, July 6, 2012
The Prestige
When: 2006, Bale's 32nd film
Genre: Suspense, Historical
Kate says this was definitely one of those "I have to see it to be a disciple of popular culture" movies. The Prestige came out at the same time as The Illusionist. Since I detest the latter movie, I wasn't 100% committed to seeing the former.
It is a better movie than The Illusionist, partly due to its cast. Despite his uneven choice of roles, I quite like Hugh Jackman. It's nice to see Caine and Bale reunited. And hey, what with Avengers, I now know who Scarlett Johansson is! (At the risk of losing my popular culture discipleship status, I admit not knowing who she was before Avengers.)
However, the stellar bit parts are what make the movie truly stand out: William Morgan Sheppard, Roger Rees, Edward Hibbert. David Bowie and Andy Serkis blow the movie out of the water!
I also thought The Prestige more thematically consistent than The Illusionist. At the end of The Illusionist, I felt like I was supposed to be impressed by the "trick" ending; the lovers were the heroes. I wasn't impressed, and I thought the lovers were schmucks.
At the end of The Prestige, on the other hand, the first thing that popped into my head wasn't the characters but the pigeon trick. Throughout the entire movie, the two magicians are trying to uncover the ultimate pigeon trick, only Borden is ultimately more willing than Angier to make the pigeon's sacrifice up close and personal while Angier always keeps the pigeon at one remove.
Neither of them is really hero material, but, unlike with The Illusionist, I didn't feel like I was asked to consider them heroes. It was more "hey, here's this story about these crazy obsessed guys; hmmm, what will they do next?"
Although movies without heroes are difficult to watch, I found The Prestige engaging (despite being over two hours long). My engagement was helped by Borden's complexity. As a character study, Borden becomes interesting in his own right while Angier remains a little flat. I suspect this is partly the writing; mostly, Bale is a better actor than Jackman.
In fact, Bale is the kind of actor who makes a role look easy. I think this is the definition of a true expert/artist. An ice-skater or writer or gymnast or actor or director who makes you see all the SWEAT AND TEARS AND ANGST that he/she endured isn't doing the job right; but an ice-skater or writer or gymnast or actor or director who makes you think, "Oh, I could do that," has actually, well, pulled off a pretty good magic trick.
Mike says the most impressive thing about The Prestige is how the story follows the pattern of the magic trick. The big reveal at the end of the film is The Prestige of the magic trick that is the film. I don't usually enjoy movies with no heroes, but the structure of the film is masterful, and along with the beautiful cinematography, I get pulled into the world of the film.
I'm not sure why I'm having a hard time writing this review. It may just be because my most recent viewing was jaded by a crying baby and a crazy four-year-old. As a result my enthusiasm was a bit muted.
Despite this, I really enjoy the movie. I especially love the idea of using historical figures in the backdrop of science and magic. The pure awesomeness of using Tesla is only enhanced by the amazing performance of David Bowie. Jackman's tragic character is portrayed well, but I agree with Kate that Bale gives the far more complex performance, especially considering that he's playing twins.
This film also completely meshes with Bale's resume, as it's a complex dramatic role that requires some physical preparation (10 bucks says he took a few weeks of magic training to get ready for the role). The film is also classic of the directer, Nolan, as the pacing and the multi-layered structure of the film are his trademark.
While I don't mind The Illusionist, I find the Prestige a far stronger movie. I'm just never sure who to recommend it to!
SPOILERS:
Kate says the first surprise ending did not surprise me. I actually figured out Borden had a double about 1/2 way through the movie--which, by the way, is completely unlike me (I didn't even guess the ending of The Sixth Sense). To me the most interesting question, that the movie never answers, was, "How did Borden earn so much affection from his alter-ego? Why wasn't he betrayed? What is the difference between Angier and Borden that would make it so Borden didn't have to kill his double?"
The second surprise ending totally surprised me; I thought Tesla's equipment would turn out to be another trick. (Tesla would turn out to be the ultimate magician.) That the equipment actually worked seemed a little out-of-sync with the rest of the movie since nothing else in the movie suggested a sci-fi pay-off (it is possible that it was set up, something I would catch during a second viewing). However, it did perfectly underscore the pigeon theme.
Thinking it over, the story really is Angier's and what leads him to stray so far from normal morality--but Borden is so much stronger a character, Angier-as-main-character gets lost.
Mike says the sci-fi twist in the film is what makes it for me . . . even better is that I feel it was totally set up; in fact the first image of the film is the duplicated hats and cats. The further demonstration of Tesla's abilities gradually inch the viewer towards believing something outrageous.
The revelation also heavily reinforces the plot; not just the bird trick as Kate implied, but the sub-theme of secrets and their disappointing nature. Angier could not accept the simplicity of Borden's secret. In the end he found a miraculously complex secret of his own . . . though it came at a price.
The irony of the piece is that if you watch the film closely, you find that Angier's quest to have his own reward (without sacrificing his applause by using a double) is that the original Angier dies after the first initial performance--the original stays in the booth; the double is the one who appears some distance away. In the end, Angier never got his reward . . . it was lost to a double after all.
Something that I only just realized recently is the set-up to Angier being a duke (or was it a count?). Early in the film he talks to his wife about changing his name for his family's sake . . . and in the end he tells Borden that he was always the Duke. It's a hidden wrinkle that doesn't stick out perhaps as strongly as it was meant to.
Genre: Suspense, Historical
Kate says this was definitely one of those "I have to see it to be a disciple of popular culture" movies. The Prestige came out at the same time as The Illusionist. Since I detest the latter movie, I wasn't 100% committed to seeing the former.
It is a better movie than The Illusionist, partly due to its cast. Despite his uneven choice of roles, I quite like Hugh Jackman. It's nice to see Caine and Bale reunited. And hey, what with Avengers, I now know who Scarlett Johansson is! (At the risk of losing my popular culture discipleship status, I admit not knowing who she was before Avengers.)
However, the stellar bit parts are what make the movie truly stand out: William Morgan Sheppard, Roger Rees, Edward Hibbert. David Bowie and Andy Serkis blow the movie out of the water!
I also thought The Prestige more thematically consistent than The Illusionist. At the end of The Illusionist, I felt like I was supposed to be impressed by the "trick" ending; the lovers were the heroes. I wasn't impressed, and I thought the lovers were schmucks.
At the end of The Prestige, on the other hand, the first thing that popped into my head wasn't the characters but the pigeon trick. Throughout the entire movie, the two magicians are trying to uncover the ultimate pigeon trick, only Borden is ultimately more willing than Angier to make the pigeon's sacrifice up close and personal while Angier always keeps the pigeon at one remove.
Neither of them is really hero material, but, unlike with The Illusionist, I didn't feel like I was asked to consider them heroes. It was more "hey, here's this story about these crazy obsessed guys; hmmm, what will they do next?"
Although movies without heroes are difficult to watch, I found The Prestige engaging (despite being over two hours long). My engagement was helped by Borden's complexity. As a character study, Borden becomes interesting in his own right while Angier remains a little flat. I suspect this is partly the writing; mostly, Bale is a better actor than Jackman.
In fact, Bale is the kind of actor who makes a role look easy. I think this is the definition of a true expert/artist. An ice-skater or writer or gymnast or actor or director who makes you see all the SWEAT AND TEARS AND ANGST that he/she endured isn't doing the job right; but an ice-skater or writer or gymnast or actor or director who makes you think, "Oh, I could do that," has actually, well, pulled off a pretty good magic trick.
Mike says the most impressive thing about The Prestige is how the story follows the pattern of the magic trick. The big reveal at the end of the film is The Prestige of the magic trick that is the film. I don't usually enjoy movies with no heroes, but the structure of the film is masterful, and along with the beautiful cinematography, I get pulled into the world of the film.
I'm not sure why I'm having a hard time writing this review. It may just be because my most recent viewing was jaded by a crying baby and a crazy four-year-old. As a result my enthusiasm was a bit muted.
Despite this, I really enjoy the movie. I especially love the idea of using historical figures in the backdrop of science and magic. The pure awesomeness of using Tesla is only enhanced by the amazing performance of David Bowie. Jackman's tragic character is portrayed well, but I agree with Kate that Bale gives the far more complex performance, especially considering that he's playing twins.
This film also completely meshes with Bale's resume, as it's a complex dramatic role that requires some physical preparation (10 bucks says he took a few weeks of magic training to get ready for the role). The film is also classic of the directer, Nolan, as the pacing and the multi-layered structure of the film are his trademark.
While I don't mind The Illusionist, I find the Prestige a far stronger movie. I'm just never sure who to recommend it to!
SPOILERS:
Kate says the first surprise ending did not surprise me. I actually figured out Borden had a double about 1/2 way through the movie--which, by the way, is completely unlike me (I didn't even guess the ending of The Sixth Sense). To me the most interesting question, that the movie never answers, was, "How did Borden earn so much affection from his alter-ego? Why wasn't he betrayed? What is the difference between Angier and Borden that would make it so Borden didn't have to kill his double?"
The second surprise ending totally surprised me; I thought Tesla's equipment would turn out to be another trick. (Tesla would turn out to be the ultimate magician.) That the equipment actually worked seemed a little out-of-sync with the rest of the movie since nothing else in the movie suggested a sci-fi pay-off (it is possible that it was set up, something I would catch during a second viewing). However, it did perfectly underscore the pigeon theme.
Thinking it over, the story really is Angier's and what leads him to stray so far from normal morality--but Borden is so much stronger a character, Angier-as-main-character gets lost.
Mike says the sci-fi twist in the film is what makes it for me . . . even better is that I feel it was totally set up; in fact the first image of the film is the duplicated hats and cats. The further demonstration of Tesla's abilities gradually inch the viewer towards believing something outrageous.
The revelation also heavily reinforces the plot; not just the bird trick as Kate implied, but the sub-theme of secrets and their disappointing nature. Angier could not accept the simplicity of Borden's secret. In the end he found a miraculously complex secret of his own . . . though it came at a price.
The irony of the piece is that if you watch the film closely, you find that Angier's quest to have his own reward (without sacrificing his applause by using a double) is that the original Angier dies after the first initial performance--the original stays in the booth; the double is the one who appears some distance away. In the end, Angier never got his reward . . . it was lost to a double after all.
Something that I only just realized recently is the set-up to Angier being a duke (or was it a count?). Early in the film he talks to his wife about changing his name for his family's sake . . . and in the end he tells Borden that he was always the Duke. It's a hidden wrinkle that doesn't stick out perhaps as strongly as it was meant to.
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies
Friday, June 29, 2012
Howl's Moving Castle
When: 2004, Bale's 27th film
Genre: Animation, Fantasy
Mike says as a Geek through and through, anime definitely has a place in my heart. That place may not be as big as in other people with a similar range of interests, but it's there. So it was with a lot of excitement that I sat down to watch Howl for the first time. I've always intended to see it; however, I just never had the opportunity. After watching the film, I can offer only one real solid piece of advice: Don't ever, Ever, EVER watch an anime through the first time with a four-year-old kid. Seriously.
I didn't know it was possible for the human mouth and brain, no matter the age, to produce that many questions within a 5-second time frame. Stretch that through a admittedly very weird 2-hour movie (with a kid raised on Pixar and Dreamworks), and it has to be a really good film for both Father and Son to make it through.
Luckily, Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty good movie.
IS it weird? Hell, yes. Is the plot easy to follow? Uh, not really, no. Add in some particularly odd imagery, character interactions that feel a little out of continuity, and subdued voice acting, and you have something that feels like it was made by an entirely different culture . . . which, luckily, is the entire point of watching anime.
The film's visuals are absolutely stunning. My only real complaint at first was the inconstancy of how Sophie is presented . . . her height varies, as does the severity of her hunch, as well as her nose size. This bugged me-- that is, until I realized what was happening. One of the nice things about Japanese films is how much credit they give the audience: No, we're not going to explain this. YOU figure it out. My son noticed Sophie's state of flux almost at once . . . and admittedly, answering three or four dozen questions about it through the course of the film definitely helped me pay attention and work out what was happening to her.
The entire movie works this way: each odd detail is a clue in understanding the extra bits of the story. While some details are simplified, others are worked out exhaustively. Howl's castle, for example, is amazing in the way it shifts and bounces and grooves as it travels. How often in animation have we been presented with miraculous moving buildings that seem to float completely solid and intact from place to place? Not Howl's Castle. Every brick seems to balance miraculously and precariously on top of each other, each one rocks to and fro by the castle's legs. It's instantly understandable: this thing should not, could not exist without magic. Something my son worked out after about ten minutes of rapid fire questions.
Despite it's apparent strangeness to us Americans, the story is quite entertaining, especially in its refusal to follow stereotypes: The wicked witch becomes a friend, the heroine spends most of the film as an old lady, the handsome hero is a bi-polar demon, and the girl doesn't even consider pairing up with her destined "true love" (who has a whopping 5 lines in the film).
Perhaps the only thing I'm still not sold on, and this is an anime thing, NOT a particular complaint about this film, is the often subdued voice acting. The English dubbing in anime often tries (though not always) to emulate the tone of the original versions . . . the problem is that to my American-English trained ears, the characters all sound calm and monotone in their native language.
To his credit, Bale do a great job capturing this . . . however it can sometimes be a bit disorienting, especially when Howl is grinning and speaking calmly about how scared and upset he is during a suspenseful scene.
Bale's entire performance of Howl is very subdued, though he is able to capture the character's humor (as out of place as it might seam in such serious surroundings). The biggest surprise in his performance, however, was when Batman's voice began coming from Howl's feathered monster form. "Ah ha!" I thought. "So that's where he learned to talk like that!"
Overall, Howl's Moving Castle is a beautiful and odd film. My son seemed to enjoy it too, despite having no real understanding of what transpired. While I definitely recommend the movie, you might want to watch it without the "preschooler commentary track" activated.
Kate says simply put, this is a gorgeous film. It is one of those films that is so visually stunning, it almost doesn't need a story.
But it has one--a charming romance. I'm using the term here in the medieval sense: a story that involves love, fantasy, and war. Plus well-wrought, captivating characters. The capricious, tortured yet charming and insouciant Howl alongside the shy, witty, industrious and intrinsically tough Sophie are not only unusual and well-rounded personalities, they pull the viewer into the story. They are also such perfect manga characters, I doubt anyone BUT Miyazaki could have brought Diane Wynne Jones's book to the screen.
The English dub is exceptional (thanks to Pixar's involvement). I confess, I didn't recognize Bale as the voice of Howl when I first saw the movie. I saw it about the same time as Batman Begins, though it was made before, and I assumed (mistakenly!) that Bale was too big to be involved in what, at that time, amounted to an art film.
If this list has taught me anything it is to beware those kinds of assumptions.
Bale does a good job, naturally, but I have to admit my favorite voice casting is the endearing Jean Simmons. In fact, this is one of the few films where the switch from young to old doesn't cause a disconcerting disconnect. The shifts between voice (Mortimer to Simmons) and appearance are natural and flawless: thematically correct.
Billy Crystal fits right in, by the way.
Back to Bale--this role suits the tone of Bale's work overall. And there's a lot to be said for a voice that can make you see deadpan ("That can't be good for the table."). By the way, Howl is, as Mike describes him, a bi-polar demon--a disturbed, intellectually stressed, high-maintenance action hero; there seems to be definite trend in Bale's choice of roles in the last decade!
Last but not least, the film's animation is nothing to yawn at--it isn't just the heartrendingly beautiful scenery or the character's expressions. Although not as manically particular as Disney's animation, Miyazaki does show a loving (and humorous) interest in details: the toilet seat being up in Howl's bathroom, Calcifer eating the log, the dropped towel. The dog.
A not-sticky sweet tone runs through the film, pulling it all together. The scene at the lake stands out as encapsulating so much of Miyazaki's vision, specifically what Sophie wants for Howl. It is a surprisingly simple story with surprisingly complicated ramifications, but the story never seems overwhelmed by the "politics". By keeping his eye on Sophie, Miyazaki delivers a powerful piece of animation that illustrates that good animation can be dramatic, funny, clever, sweeping, localized, and romantic all at the same time.
Change of tone coming next: Prestige!
Genre: Animation, Fantasy
Mike says as a Geek through and through, anime definitely has a place in my heart. That place may not be as big as in other people with a similar range of interests, but it's there. So it was with a lot of excitement that I sat down to watch Howl for the first time. I've always intended to see it; however, I just never had the opportunity. After watching the film, I can offer only one real solid piece of advice: Don't ever, Ever, EVER watch an anime through the first time with a four-year-old kid. Seriously.
I didn't know it was possible for the human mouth and brain, no matter the age, to produce that many questions within a 5-second time frame. Stretch that through a admittedly very weird 2-hour movie (with a kid raised on Pixar and Dreamworks), and it has to be a really good film for both Father and Son to make it through.
Luckily, Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty good movie.
IS it weird? Hell, yes. Is the plot easy to follow? Uh, not really, no. Add in some particularly odd imagery, character interactions that feel a little out of continuity, and subdued voice acting, and you have something that feels like it was made by an entirely different culture . . . which, luckily, is the entire point of watching anime.
The film's visuals are absolutely stunning. My only real complaint at first was the inconstancy of how Sophie is presented . . . her height varies, as does the severity of her hunch, as well as her nose size. This bugged me-- that is, until I realized what was happening. One of the nice things about Japanese films is how much credit they give the audience: No, we're not going to explain this. YOU figure it out. My son noticed Sophie's state of flux almost at once . . . and admittedly, answering three or four dozen questions about it through the course of the film definitely helped me pay attention and work out what was happening to her.
The entire movie works this way: each odd detail is a clue in understanding the extra bits of the story. While some details are simplified, others are worked out exhaustively. Howl's castle, for example, is amazing in the way it shifts and bounces and grooves as it travels. How often in animation have we been presented with miraculous moving buildings that seem to float completely solid and intact from place to place? Not Howl's Castle. Every brick seems to balance miraculously and precariously on top of each other, each one rocks to and fro by the castle's legs. It's instantly understandable: this thing should not, could not exist without magic. Something my son worked out after about ten minutes of rapid fire questions.
Despite it's apparent strangeness to us Americans, the story is quite entertaining, especially in its refusal to follow stereotypes: The wicked witch becomes a friend, the heroine spends most of the film as an old lady, the handsome hero is a bi-polar demon, and the girl doesn't even consider pairing up with her destined "true love" (who has a whopping 5 lines in the film).
Perhaps the only thing I'm still not sold on, and this is an anime thing, NOT a particular complaint about this film, is the often subdued voice acting. The English dubbing in anime often tries (though not always) to emulate the tone of the original versions . . . the problem is that to my American-English trained ears, the characters all sound calm and monotone in their native language.
To his credit, Bale do a great job capturing this . . . however it can sometimes be a bit disorienting, especially when Howl is grinning and speaking calmly about how scared and upset he is during a suspenseful scene.
Bale's entire performance of Howl is very subdued, though he is able to capture the character's humor (as out of place as it might seam in such serious surroundings). The biggest surprise in his performance, however, was when Batman's voice began coming from Howl's feathered monster form. "Ah ha!" I thought. "So that's where he learned to talk like that!"
Overall, Howl's Moving Castle is a beautiful and odd film. My son seemed to enjoy it too, despite having no real understanding of what transpired. While I definitely recommend the movie, you might want to watch it without the "preschooler commentary track" activated.
Kate says simply put, this is a gorgeous film. It is one of those films that is so visually stunning, it almost doesn't need a story.
But it has one--a charming romance. I'm using the term here in the medieval sense: a story that involves love, fantasy, and war. Plus well-wrought, captivating characters. The capricious, tortured yet charming and insouciant Howl alongside the shy, witty, industrious and intrinsically tough Sophie are not only unusual and well-rounded personalities, they pull the viewer into the story. They are also such perfect manga characters, I doubt anyone BUT Miyazaki could have brought Diane Wynne Jones's book to the screen.
The English dub is exceptional (thanks to Pixar's involvement). I confess, I didn't recognize Bale as the voice of Howl when I first saw the movie. I saw it about the same time as Batman Begins, though it was made before, and I assumed (mistakenly!) that Bale was too big to be involved in what, at that time, amounted to an art film.
If this list has taught me anything it is to beware those kinds of assumptions.
Bale does a good job, naturally, but I have to admit my favorite voice casting is the endearing Jean Simmons. In fact, this is one of the few films where the switch from young to old doesn't cause a disconcerting disconnect. The shifts between voice (Mortimer to Simmons) and appearance are natural and flawless: thematically correct.
Billy Crystal fits right in, by the way.
Back to Bale--this role suits the tone of Bale's work overall. And there's a lot to be said for a voice that can make you see deadpan ("That can't be good for the table."). By the way, Howl is, as Mike describes him, a bi-polar demon--a disturbed, intellectually stressed, high-maintenance action hero; there seems to be definite trend in Bale's choice of roles in the last decade!
Last but not least, the film's animation is nothing to yawn at--it isn't just the heartrendingly beautiful scenery or the character's expressions. Although not as manically particular as Disney's animation, Miyazaki does show a loving (and humorous) interest in details: the toilet seat being up in Howl's bathroom, Calcifer eating the log, the dropped towel. The dog.
A not-sticky sweet tone runs through the film, pulling it all together. The scene at the lake stands out as encapsulating so much of Miyazaki's vision, specifically what Sophie wants for Howl. It is a surprisingly simple story with surprisingly complicated ramifications, but the story never seems overwhelmed by the "politics". By keeping his eye on Sophie, Miyazaki delivers a powerful piece of animation that illustrates that good animation can be dramatic, funny, clever, sweeping, localized, and romantic all at the same time.
Change of tone coming next: Prestige!
Labels:
Adventure,
Animation,
Christian Bale,
Fantasy,
List 10
Friday, June 22, 2012
Equilibrium
When: 2002, 25th film
Age/Genre: Yeah, we skipped a lot; however, once we reviewed Little Women, we'd tackled almost every genre that Bale went on to explore between the ages of 20 and 28—family, drama, book-related, Shakespeare, musicals (we're saving voice-animation for Howl’s Moving Castle). At this point, #25, Bale’s portfolio becomes more and more action-oriented. Equilibrium is, in fact, Bale's second straight action flick.
Kate says in the world of not-so-strange-coincidence, I’ve written a story, that hopefully will come out this summer, which is the exact mirror of this movie: in my story, future society is all about the over-expression of emotion; people get good grades, jobs, contracts, etc. by crying and shouting and otherwise acting hysterically. My heroine’s problem: the over-emotionalizing “programming” didn’t take.
Which proves (1) that there are only so many ideas out there; (2) I have a proclivity for this type of sci-fi.
I’ve always enjoyed “What if?” sci-fi that asks improbable questions: What if people had no emotion? What if people had too much emotion? What if people could only say the word “if”?
The problem with this type of sci-fi is that it is easy (and fun) to start but incredibly difficult to end. Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: Voyager would just say, “Oh, our hour is up” which, actually, isn’t the worst way to end this type of narrative.
Which is all to say: the beginning of Equilibrium is fantastic, the middle is “eh” and the ending is, well, um, huh?
Talk about deus ex machinas! (Spoilers follow.) The leader of the underground just happens to be a Messianic figure living right next door? Preston, who has EVERY reason to put the woman first over vague revolutionary ideals, DOESN’T put her first? (I’m not usually in favor of characters betraying their countries for l-u-v but in this case, it totally would have made sense.) The kids suddenly turn out not to be taking the emotionless juice?
The last point bothered me more than the rest. All in all, plot-wise, this is a tidy film (and I’ll get to my absolute favorite part in just a moment). But I really think Preston should have had more investment in those kids. If he is going to start a revolution, what’s he doing it for? So he can feel isn’t enough—he can feel on his own without involving anyone else.
What makes Preston altruistic, what makes Preston willing to slaughter literally hundreds of people? I thought the irony of connecting Preston’s choices to his feelings was clever (and sold the theme that emotion is worth the price), but it isn't enough to explain the enormity of what he does.
Preston does what he is does for a PRINCIPLE—and, well, that’s a whole other problem and a whole other movie.
Anyway, even from a writing point of view, the kids’ behavior needed to be set up more.
My absolute favorite part: how feeling is connected to little things. I love the scene when Preston wakes after not taking his meds and sees the sunlight. I love his humorous response to the dog’s yapping (love that dog!). I love the snow globe. (Beethoven is great, but I really love the globe.) I love Partridge's worn copy of Yeats. I love the “sex scene” with Mary that involves touching fingers. I love Preston rearranging his desk—these minor, beautiful moments are touching and real and sell much (if not all) of the movie's point.
The movie is worth watching. In fact, it is one of the few movies that I’ve seen where I thought, “You know, this would make a really awesome book” (rather than the other way around). It would be fascinating to read Preston’s process of thought/what he is thinking as he changes.
As for the cast: Bale is all grown up and acting fierce. Though the movie is not as good as The Matrix (despite the blurb on the DVD I borrowed), Bale is definitely a better actor than Reeves (not that Reeves isn’t good at doing his thing). The scene where Bale watches his wife getting ready for work is a great example of Bale's ability to transmit emotion without under or overacting: without saying anything, Bale betrays Preston’s longing for his wife, even though at the time the character doesn't understand his own behavior.
And Bale does completely sell the idea that Preston is changing internally. (Not an easy thing to do in a role where the character hardly discusses anything with anyone.)
The rest of the cast is notable. I mean, any movie with Sean Bean . . . Taye Briggs is thoroughly stunning although his character, Brandt, is wretchedly under-utilized. (Agent Smith is paid-off much better.) Emily Watson is my favorite kind of heroine—she doesn’t do much, but everything she does has depth. And I have to give a shout-out to Sean Pertwee (the “face” of Father). I first encountered Pertwee when watching the Brother Cadfael mysteries (he plays Hugh in the first series). As Father, he really sells the intellectual ideas behind the culture.
Unfortunately, Angus MacFayden as Dupont is thoroughly dull; Fichtner would have made a better nut-job with delusions of grandeur; wait, he kind of does!
But, again, Bale is astonishing. After watching him sleep-walk (in a good way) through Little Women, I have to say, action movies really are his forte.
Although next week will change our focus yet again!
Mike says I know the plot has holes. I know that a society such as the one presented in the film would also be problematic and is difficult to represent accurately with actors who CAN feel emotion. The truth is the film is far from perfect, and yet I still enjoy it immensely.
As opposed to your run of the mill small release, Equilibrium tries very hard to be a thinking man’s action flick, making a philosophical argument a little more enjoyable with bad-ass martial arts. Whether or not the film succeeds in this is really up to the viewer
Bale’s performance is strong, moving, and genuine. For me, he really sold his transformation. The film is also a definitive move back to the physical roles he seems to prefer. The only problem with Bale’s performance is that he conveys his emotional discoveries so well that it’s hard to imagine no one picked up on his offense sooner. Fortunately, this is worked into the story itself, with just about everyone knowing what is going on, but each letting Preston get away with it in order to meet their own agendas.
The film really is a fusion between action flick and dystopian drama . . . and the action definitely feels a little shoe-horned in, but it plays enough of a role in the story that it does work. That the action is spectacular helps to hide the odd pairing. While the idea of a martial art based around guns sounds a bit silly at first, it does make a sort of sense: Martial arts are often based around a simple weapon that is easy to get a hold of. In the right society, it would make sense for such a thing to develop.
Between the action and the plot, the success of the entire movie really comes down to Bale. Despite some admittedly significant flaws in the script, Bale’s phenomenal handling of both elevates the entire film.
Bale’s moving portrayal of his emotional journey is masterful, but my favorite scene in the film uses both action and acting. Finally accepted into the sanctuary of Father, Bale is subjected to a polygraph that will reveal him as a sense offender. While hooked to the machine, the main villain’s entire plan, including the manipulation of Preston’s own emotions, is revealed and victory is declared as the villains claim they tricked the hero into surrendering “without incident.”
Preston is overwhelmed with rage, despair, and sadness to the point of exploding. Instead, the polygraph, which has been recording severe emotion, suddenly deadlines to the horror of the doctors. “No. Not without incident.” And, of course, gratuitous violence ensues.
I really do love this film, despite its flaws. And, to be honest, I desperately needed something to cleanse my pallet of Little Women. Thank goodness for action flicks!
Age/Genre: Yeah, we skipped a lot; however, once we reviewed Little Women, we'd tackled almost every genre that Bale went on to explore between the ages of 20 and 28—family, drama, book-related, Shakespeare, musicals (we're saving voice-animation for Howl’s Moving Castle). At this point, #25, Bale’s portfolio becomes more and more action-oriented. Equilibrium is, in fact, Bale's second straight action flick.
Kate says in the world of not-so-strange-coincidence, I’ve written a story, that hopefully will come out this summer, which is the exact mirror of this movie: in my story, future society is all about the over-expression of emotion; people get good grades, jobs, contracts, etc. by crying and shouting and otherwise acting hysterically. My heroine’s problem: the over-emotionalizing “programming” didn’t take.
Which proves (1) that there are only so many ideas out there; (2) I have a proclivity for this type of sci-fi.
I’ve always enjoyed “What if?” sci-fi that asks improbable questions: What if people had no emotion? What if people had too much emotion? What if people could only say the word “if”?
The problem with this type of sci-fi is that it is easy (and fun) to start but incredibly difficult to end. Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: Voyager would just say, “Oh, our hour is up” which, actually, isn’t the worst way to end this type of narrative.
Which is all to say: the beginning of Equilibrium is fantastic, the middle is “eh” and the ending is, well, um, huh?
Talk about deus ex machinas! (Spoilers follow.) The leader of the underground just happens to be a Messianic figure living right next door? Preston, who has EVERY reason to put the woman first over vague revolutionary ideals, DOESN’T put her first? (I’m not usually in favor of characters betraying their countries for l-u-v but in this case, it totally would have made sense.) The kids suddenly turn out not to be taking the emotionless juice?
The last point bothered me more than the rest. All in all, plot-wise, this is a tidy film (and I’ll get to my absolute favorite part in just a moment). But I really think Preston should have had more investment in those kids. If he is going to start a revolution, what’s he doing it for? So he can feel isn’t enough—he can feel on his own without involving anyone else.
What makes Preston altruistic, what makes Preston willing to slaughter literally hundreds of people? I thought the irony of connecting Preston’s choices to his feelings was clever (and sold the theme that emotion is worth the price), but it isn't enough to explain the enormity of what he does.
Preston does what he is does for a PRINCIPLE—and, well, that’s a whole other problem and a whole other movie.
Anyway, even from a writing point of view, the kids’ behavior needed to be set up more.
My absolute favorite part: how feeling is connected to little things. I love the scene when Preston wakes after not taking his meds and sees the sunlight. I love his humorous response to the dog’s yapping (love that dog!). I love the snow globe. (Beethoven is great, but I really love the globe.) I love Partridge's worn copy of Yeats. I love the “sex scene” with Mary that involves touching fingers. I love Preston rearranging his desk—these minor, beautiful moments are touching and real and sell much (if not all) of the movie's point.
The movie is worth watching. In fact, it is one of the few movies that I’ve seen where I thought, “You know, this would make a really awesome book” (rather than the other way around). It would be fascinating to read Preston’s process of thought/what he is thinking as he changes.
As for the cast: Bale is all grown up and acting fierce. Though the movie is not as good as The Matrix (despite the blurb on the DVD I borrowed), Bale is definitely a better actor than Reeves (not that Reeves isn’t good at doing his thing). The scene where Bale watches his wife getting ready for work is a great example of Bale's ability to transmit emotion without under or overacting: without saying anything, Bale betrays Preston’s longing for his wife, even though at the time the character doesn't understand his own behavior.
And Bale does completely sell the idea that Preston is changing internally. (Not an easy thing to do in a role where the character hardly discusses anything with anyone.)
The rest of the cast is notable. I mean, any movie with Sean Bean . . . Taye Briggs is thoroughly stunning although his character, Brandt, is wretchedly under-utilized. (Agent Smith is paid-off much better.) Emily Watson is my favorite kind of heroine—she doesn’t do much, but everything she does has depth. And I have to give a shout-out to Sean Pertwee (the “face” of Father). I first encountered Pertwee when watching the Brother Cadfael mysteries (he plays Hugh in the first series). As Father, he really sells the intellectual ideas behind the culture.
Unfortunately, Angus MacFayden as Dupont is thoroughly dull; Fichtner would have made a better nut-job with delusions of grandeur; wait, he kind of does!
But, again, Bale is astonishing. After watching him sleep-walk (in a good way) through Little Women, I have to say, action movies really are his forte.
Although next week will change our focus yet again!
Mike says I know the plot has holes. I know that a society such as the one presented in the film would also be problematic and is difficult to represent accurately with actors who CAN feel emotion. The truth is the film is far from perfect, and yet I still enjoy it immensely.
As opposed to your run of the mill small release, Equilibrium tries very hard to be a thinking man’s action flick, making a philosophical argument a little more enjoyable with bad-ass martial arts. Whether or not the film succeeds in this is really up to the viewer
Bale’s performance is strong, moving, and genuine. For me, he really sold his transformation. The film is also a definitive move back to the physical roles he seems to prefer. The only problem with Bale’s performance is that he conveys his emotional discoveries so well that it’s hard to imagine no one picked up on his offense sooner. Fortunately, this is worked into the story itself, with just about everyone knowing what is going on, but each letting Preston get away with it in order to meet their own agendas.
The film really is a fusion between action flick and dystopian drama . . . and the action definitely feels a little shoe-horned in, but it plays enough of a role in the story that it does work. That the action is spectacular helps to hide the odd pairing. While the idea of a martial art based around guns sounds a bit silly at first, it does make a sort of sense: Martial arts are often based around a simple weapon that is easy to get a hold of. In the right society, it would make sense for such a thing to develop.
Between the action and the plot, the success of the entire movie really comes down to Bale. Despite some admittedly significant flaws in the script, Bale’s phenomenal handling of both elevates the entire film.
Bale’s moving portrayal of his emotional journey is masterful, but my favorite scene in the film uses both action and acting. Finally accepted into the sanctuary of Father, Bale is subjected to a polygraph that will reveal him as a sense offender. While hooked to the machine, the main villain’s entire plan, including the manipulation of Preston’s own emotions, is revealed and victory is declared as the villains claim they tricked the hero into surrendering “without incident.”
Preston is overwhelmed with rage, despair, and sadness to the point of exploding. Instead, the polygraph, which has been recording severe emotion, suddenly deadlines to the horror of the doctors. “No. Not without incident.” And, of course, gratuitous violence ensues.
I really do love this film, despite its flaws. And, to be honest, I desperately needed something to cleanse my pallet of Little Women. Thank goodness for action flicks!
Labels:
Action,
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies,
SciFi
Friday, June 15, 2012
Little Women (1994)
When: 1994, Bale's 11th film
Age: 20
Genre/Director: Chick flick (to the nth degree); Gillian Armstrong, director; Louisa May Alcott, writer; Robin Swicord, screenwriter
Mike says while watching Little Women, I went through all the required steps for watching a chick flick: I laughed, I cried, and I hugged my pillow. The problem is, I don't think I did any of them in the right order, and all of it was pain and suffering inspired.
The thing that surprised me about the film is how relentlessly happy and cheerful it is. Sure, the girls fight; sure there's sickness and death and boy troubles, but it all ends in hugs and tears and laughter and sickly sweet cheerfulness that made me reflect (several times) on how awful a human being I was compared to these four wonderful ladies and women in general. Which I believe was the secret agenda behind this film the whole time!
Sure, women have to endure childbirth, but we men have to endure two things far more terrifying: pregnant women and CHICK FLICKS.
After writing the above, I was suddenly terrified I had crossed the line into rudeness, which prompted me to read it to my wife to check its appropriateness. As she just grinned, rolled her eyes, and went back to eating her cereal, I'm going to assume it's fine. But women of the world, if you're insulted, I am sorry. But . . . come on. The movie didn't even have one fist fight! And after having two kids, I feel qualified saying pregnant women are scary (admittedly, I didn't read THIS sentence to my wife).
Anyway, right, the movie. It's definitely beautifully shot, and while I've never read the book, the movie is made with such care that it's obvious the filmmakers cared about the story. The cast is actually fairly impressive, and I'm somewhat surprised that only a couple serious British actors (including Bale) were in the film (though, it is an classic American novel, so really, top American actresses should be a no brainer).
The trouble with having no classically trained British actors, is that modern Americans can't really pull off the classiness of the novel's era . . . it could be my own bias, but the acting was a consistent distraction for me. Often it felt more like children playing "make believe" than professionals setting a dramatic scene.
Admittedly, this sounds overly harsh, and honestly, it might be. As the film trucks solidly along, it does become more tolerable, and many of the actors seem to grow into their roles, especially Bale. But none of the actors ever truly disappear into their roles for me.
The story, well, it does its job as well as any such film can. For a movie that could have easily carried the subtitle of "GO Women, RA RA RA!" the film definitely uses a sledge hammer to drive the point home but surprisingly never resorts to the jack-hammer. The film definitely flirts with the line between female equality and female superiority, but it never fully crosses it. The movie was made BY and FOR women, but it seems it was acknowledged that a few husbands might be conned into seeing the thing.
Bale does well. His casting is again a kind of "well, DUH" choice, as he was very popular with the target audience (i.e., teenage girls), an established dramatic actor, and well, British. It's funny how much weight that can really carry for an actor. The only real difference here is how mellow the role of Laurie is for Bale. He seems relaxed and enjoying himself, and for someone we've discovered is a VERY physical actor, the role isn't very demanding.
In the end, I am glad I saw it. It's a story I've never really understood, and it clarifies a lot of my sister's odd behavior from when we were teens.
But that still doesn't mean I'm not THRILLED to have an action flick on the slate next week.
Kate says I confess I've seen my share of Steel Magnolia type flicks (though not Beaches). This is one!
It does stand out from other chick flicks, however, in the loving sincerity of its adaptation. Steel Magnolias, which is quite a good film, is designed to MAKE YOU LAUGH, then CRY, then LAUGH, then HUG.
Little Women is far gentler in its goals. Even Beth's death scene (and yes, that is spoiler, but really, everyone should know about Beth's death by now, even if it's just from watching Friends: "Joey, do you want to put the book in the freezer?") The director and screenplay writer are obvious fans of the book, something I appreciate in movies even when I'm not a huge fan of the book itself.
The movie's only major flaw is the lack of continuity between the amazing Kirsten Dunst as Amy and her grown-up counterpart; Samantha Mathis is a decent actress, but Kirsten Dunst really sells Amy as a fully complex little ball of fire. The tone of the two actresses is different enough to give the film an uneven feel. Mathis's Amy seems a watered down version of the original. (I've always been a fan of Dunst whose charisma is not entirely reliant on her looks; like Julie Andrews, she glows.)
The director avoids the break in continuity with Laurie by having Christian Bale be both 17 and 20-something. Although TV "teens" are far less weedy-looking than real teens, Bale has a youthful enough face to let us pretend he is 16/17 without guffawing. (I can't say the same for Tom Welling; every time I would watch Smallville, I'd think, "Give me a break. No one notices that this 24 year old is running around a high school!? I know he's Superman, but surely, someone from the school board would have kicked him out by now.")
Other than being a character who grows up in two hours, Bale doesn't do much else but show up and act well.
Because, let's fact it: the movie isn't about the guys (geez, what's the father even in the movie for?). Gabriel Bryne is slightly less incidental than Bale but not by much. The movie isn't really even about sisters--although they do have the perfect mother! It is about girlfriends: four girls of different personality types growing up together. Stick them in Florida in the 1980s--they're the Golden Girls!
This is mostly the movie, not the book. The screenwriter intelligently focused the movie on Jo's development from youth to adulthood. Although Jo is a major player in the book (and many people's favorite character), the other characters are somewhat more fleshed out in the book. But, again, I can't fault the screenwriter for her decisions. Reducing a large classic to an endurable (Mike can debate that last word if he wishes) 2 hours is fairly impressive. The 1994 movie is also far less saccharine than its black and white counterpart (believe it or not!), bringing it closer in line with the book. Alcott had a strong core of realism (though, like Jo, she wrote thrillers, which are actually quite fun to read).
I can't say I took away anything about Bale from this movie (while I wouldn't say he is "phoning in" his performance, I do agree with Mike that he just seems to be enjoying himself--this isn't really a "I'm going to stretch my abilities" kind of role for him). Mostly, I took away the difference--just in tone--between an adaptation that values the original work and one that doesn't. Give me book-lovers any day over directors and writers who just purchase the title!
Age: 20
Genre/Director: Chick flick (to the nth degree); Gillian Armstrong, director; Louisa May Alcott, writer; Robin Swicord, screenwriter
Mike says while watching Little Women, I went through all the required steps for watching a chick flick: I laughed, I cried, and I hugged my pillow. The problem is, I don't think I did any of them in the right order, and all of it was pain and suffering inspired.
The thing that surprised me about the film is how relentlessly happy and cheerful it is. Sure, the girls fight; sure there's sickness and death and boy troubles, but it all ends in hugs and tears and laughter and sickly sweet cheerfulness that made me reflect (several times) on how awful a human being I was compared to these four wonderful ladies and women in general. Which I believe was the secret agenda behind this film the whole time!
Sure, women have to endure childbirth, but we men have to endure two things far more terrifying: pregnant women and CHICK FLICKS.
After writing the above, I was suddenly terrified I had crossed the line into rudeness, which prompted me to read it to my wife to check its appropriateness. As she just grinned, rolled her eyes, and went back to eating her cereal, I'm going to assume it's fine. But women of the world, if you're insulted, I am sorry. But . . . come on. The movie didn't even have one fist fight! And after having two kids, I feel qualified saying pregnant women are scary (admittedly, I didn't read THIS sentence to my wife).
Anyway, right, the movie. It's definitely beautifully shot, and while I've never read the book, the movie is made with such care that it's obvious the filmmakers cared about the story. The cast is actually fairly impressive, and I'm somewhat surprised that only a couple serious British actors (including Bale) were in the film (though, it is an classic American novel, so really, top American actresses should be a no brainer).
The trouble with having no classically trained British actors, is that modern Americans can't really pull off the classiness of the novel's era . . . it could be my own bias, but the acting was a consistent distraction for me. Often it felt more like children playing "make believe" than professionals setting a dramatic scene.
Admittedly, this sounds overly harsh, and honestly, it might be. As the film trucks solidly along, it does become more tolerable, and many of the actors seem to grow into their roles, especially Bale. But none of the actors ever truly disappear into their roles for me.
The story, well, it does its job as well as any such film can. For a movie that could have easily carried the subtitle of "GO Women, RA RA RA!" the film definitely uses a sledge hammer to drive the point home but surprisingly never resorts to the jack-hammer. The film definitely flirts with the line between female equality and female superiority, but it never fully crosses it. The movie was made BY and FOR women, but it seems it was acknowledged that a few husbands might be conned into seeing the thing.
Bale does well. His casting is again a kind of "well, DUH" choice, as he was very popular with the target audience (i.e., teenage girls), an established dramatic actor, and well, British. It's funny how much weight that can really carry for an actor. The only real difference here is how mellow the role of Laurie is for Bale. He seems relaxed and enjoying himself, and for someone we've discovered is a VERY physical actor, the role isn't very demanding.
In the end, I am glad I saw it. It's a story I've never really understood, and it clarifies a lot of my sister's odd behavior from when we were teens.
But that still doesn't mean I'm not THRILLED to have an action flick on the slate next week.
Kate says I confess I've seen my share of Steel Magnolia type flicks (though not Beaches). This is one!
It does stand out from other chick flicks, however, in the loving sincerity of its adaptation. Steel Magnolias, which is quite a good film, is designed to MAKE YOU LAUGH, then CRY, then LAUGH, then HUG.
Little Women is far gentler in its goals. Even Beth's death scene (and yes, that is spoiler, but really, everyone should know about Beth's death by now, even if it's just from watching Friends: "Joey, do you want to put the book in the freezer?") The director and screenplay writer are obvious fans of the book, something I appreciate in movies even when I'm not a huge fan of the book itself.
The movie's only major flaw is the lack of continuity between the amazing Kirsten Dunst as Amy and her grown-up counterpart; Samantha Mathis is a decent actress, but Kirsten Dunst really sells Amy as a fully complex little ball of fire. The tone of the two actresses is different enough to give the film an uneven feel. Mathis's Amy seems a watered down version of the original. (I've always been a fan of Dunst whose charisma is not entirely reliant on her looks; like Julie Andrews, she glows.)
The director avoids the break in continuity with Laurie by having Christian Bale be both 17 and 20-something. Although TV "teens" are far less weedy-looking than real teens, Bale has a youthful enough face to let us pretend he is 16/17 without guffawing. (I can't say the same for Tom Welling; every time I would watch Smallville, I'd think, "Give me a break. No one notices that this 24 year old is running around a high school!? I know he's Superman, but surely, someone from the school board would have kicked him out by now.")
Other than being a character who grows up in two hours, Bale doesn't do much else but show up and act well.
Because, let's fact it: the movie isn't about the guys (geez, what's the father even in the movie for?). Gabriel Bryne is slightly less incidental than Bale but not by much. The movie isn't really even about sisters--although they do have the perfect mother! It is about girlfriends: four girls of different personality types growing up together. Stick them in Florida in the 1980s--they're the Golden Girls!
This is mostly the movie, not the book. The screenwriter intelligently focused the movie on Jo's development from youth to adulthood. Although Jo is a major player in the book (and many people's favorite character), the other characters are somewhat more fleshed out in the book. But, again, I can't fault the screenwriter for her decisions. Reducing a large classic to an endurable (Mike can debate that last word if he wishes) 2 hours is fairly impressive. The 1994 movie is also far less saccharine than its black and white counterpart (believe it or not!), bringing it closer in line with the book. Alcott had a strong core of realism (though, like Jo, she wrote thrillers, which are actually quite fun to read).
I can't say I took away anything about Bale from this movie (while I wouldn't say he is "phoning in" his performance, I do agree with Mike that he just seems to be enjoying himself--this isn't really a "I'm going to stretch my abilities" kind of role for him). Mostly, I took away the difference--just in tone--between an adaptation that values the original work and one that doesn't. Give me book-lovers any day over directors and writers who just purchase the title!
Labels:
Chick Flick,
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies,
Movies Based on Books
Friday, June 8, 2012
Newsies
When: 1992, Bale's eighth film
Age: 18
Genre/Director: Musical, "True Life", Family Film; Kenny Ortega, director; music by Alan Menken (of Walt Disney fame)
Kate says this movie was both better and worse than I'd remembered!
I saw this movie when it came out, at least twice. What can I say: Christian Bale was the latest hottie; my roommates and I were young; it's a musical, and we were BYU students.
Setting aside the outrageously sanitized plot, which makes Pollyanna look like an angsty French film, the movie does have a plot. Since it is a musical, it has about 45 minutes of plot to an unending amount of music (irony: I love musicals; I always think they are too long). But still: problem, climax, resolution. These days, a movie that can pull off the latter thoroughly impresses me.
What surprised me the most is that I remembered the songs! Give Alan Menken his dues, he produces memorable music. I was downright astonished that I not only remembered the songs but the words--okay, so maybe I saw the movie more than twice!
And I quite like Riverdance-type choreography. I mean, Newsies is basically Annie on testosterone and quite frankly, I'd rather watch dancing that is more athletic than sappy. If I MUST have children dancing in the streets of New York, at least have them do it while pounding the pavement.
And I like Bill Pullman, even if he can't sing. While You are Sleeping--where Pullman gets to play the romantic lead for once!--has always been one of my favorite movies.
As for Christian Bale--I'll deal first with the character's accent, which makes me grit my teeth. I'm not going to claim that the accent is inaccurate. I don't have an ear for accents for one thing and whenever people start pooh-poohing accents, I always remember Glenn Quinn (who played Doyle on Angel) being criticized for his so-called phony Irish accent. The guy was Irish! The problem was he was too Irish--he had to loop a ton of his dialog to sound more "American."
All that said, I've never been a big fan of authenticity being forced on me through accent. I don't even like reading books where the authors make their characters sound "medieval"--after all, real medieval people wouldn't sound "forsoothly" to each other. Likewise . . . okay, the same doesn't really hold true for New Yorkers; like Londoners, New Yorkers have a range of accents. But I find it distracting, especially since it sounds so belabored coming out of Bale's mouth.
If you ignore the grating accent, however, Bale actually does an excellent job. While Empire of the Sun could be described as a fluke (child actors can often pull off complex characters simply because they are so unself-conscious) and the next two films as passable, Newsies indicates that Bale is actually a good actor.
That still wouldn't have guaranteed his long-term success, of course. The number of popular teen/twenty-year-old actors who last exactly as long as a teen's attention span is . . . too vast to enumerate (Ralph Macchio, anyone?). But the talent was there; Bale was definitely growing into a knowledge of his own abilities to the point where there's a slightly uneven aspect to the film: while almost everyone else is good-natured and happy when called on to be good-natured and happy, Bale behaves in accordance with his character's background--to the point where I started to think, "Hmm, attachment disorder anyone?" He is entirely consistent, far more than anyone else in the film except David Moscow (of Big fame), with excellent comedic timing.
One problem--with the movie, not Bale: I realize Newsies is a family-friendly feature. I realize that despite the "true life" inspiration, this movie isn't really history. But the ending bugs me. Why can't the poor guy go to Santa Fe? All he's got in New York is a bunch of dysfunctional friends, a family he hardly knows (see attachment disorder above), and a job that pays him absolutely nothing. Geez, GO WEST, YOUNG MAN. It worked for Charles Howard of Seabiscuit fame.
Mike says musicals have never really struck me as very physical films. Sure, there's dancing, and singing, and the occasional big production number . . . but for some reason I always assumed the hardest part about them was the signing. In our last review, however, Kate mentioned the physicality of Bale's roles in the last few films. And I was rather surprised by how true that holds through Newsies.
The role of Jack is actually VERY physical, with fights, some respectable stunts, and some VERY demanding dance numbers. While I've always loved the film for the music and singing, this is really the first time I've fully appreciated the dancing. It also has me thinking back to other musicals, and seeing for the first time how demanding many of those dance numbers are.
Bale's performance is actually pretty impressive, as he leads the cast with what may be the most complex performance. While the other roles are well acted, Bale, and Duvall as Pulitzer, really knock it out of the park. Especially impressive is Bale's missing native English accent, which is pretty believably covered by his admittedly silly old New York/Brooklyn accent.
The story of the film, while inspired by historical events, has been given the full Disney treatment, falling in with the likes of Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame as shamefully over-sanitized family flicks. But after seeing the nightmarish mess that was Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd, I don't think sanitation of sad and hard events is a bad thing for a musical. It seems people really have to look healthy and happy to pull off singing their emotions.
I've discovered that every musical has at least one song I fast forward through (with the Buffy musical, it's "Under Your Spell," Mary Poppins is "Feed the Birds", and Willy Wonka is "Cheer up, Charlie"), but Newsies is my one exception. While "Santa Fe" definitely fills the same spot as the other songs I mentioned, it's surprisingly tolerable for the emotional song of the film.
The other thing that strikes me is the rather average skill level of the singing across the board. While all the actors sing better than I, they're all around the same quality of singer, and no one in the cast really stands out above the rest (with the possible exception of Medda, but she's the only character who "sings for real" in the reality of the movie, so she's supposed to be good). The thing I like about this is that they're all very believable singers . . . I fully believe these are the voices of average everyday people. Not great for an album; awesome for a musical.
Perhaps the only thing missing, for me, is the great big number with all the characters singing different lines and parts over each other. While I admittedly never understand a single word, it sure does sound nice!
Now, back to the discussion about who in the film is REALLY signing, and who is only singing metaphorically. . . . .
Age: 18
Genre/Director: Musical, "True Life", Family Film; Kenny Ortega, director; music by Alan Menken (of Walt Disney fame)
Kate says this movie was both better and worse than I'd remembered!
I saw this movie when it came out, at least twice. What can I say: Christian Bale was the latest hottie; my roommates and I were young; it's a musical, and we were BYU students.
Setting aside the outrageously sanitized plot, which makes Pollyanna look like an angsty French film, the movie does have a plot. Since it is a musical, it has about 45 minutes of plot to an unending amount of music (irony: I love musicals; I always think they are too long). But still: problem, climax, resolution. These days, a movie that can pull off the latter thoroughly impresses me.
What surprised me the most is that I remembered the songs! Give Alan Menken his dues, he produces memorable music. I was downright astonished that I not only remembered the songs but the words--okay, so maybe I saw the movie more than twice!
And I quite like Riverdance-type choreography. I mean, Newsies is basically Annie on testosterone and quite frankly, I'd rather watch dancing that is more athletic than sappy. If I MUST have children dancing in the streets of New York, at least have them do it while pounding the pavement.
And I like Bill Pullman, even if he can't sing. While You are Sleeping--where Pullman gets to play the romantic lead for once!--has always been one of my favorite movies.
As for Christian Bale--I'll deal first with the character's accent, which makes me grit my teeth. I'm not going to claim that the accent is inaccurate. I don't have an ear for accents for one thing and whenever people start pooh-poohing accents, I always remember Glenn Quinn (who played Doyle on Angel) being criticized for his so-called phony Irish accent. The guy was Irish! The problem was he was too Irish--he had to loop a ton of his dialog to sound more "American."
All that said, I've never been a big fan of authenticity being forced on me through accent. I don't even like reading books where the authors make their characters sound "medieval"--after all, real medieval people wouldn't sound "forsoothly" to each other. Likewise . . . okay, the same doesn't really hold true for New Yorkers; like Londoners, New Yorkers have a range of accents. But I find it distracting, especially since it sounds so belabored coming out of Bale's mouth.
If you ignore the grating accent, however, Bale actually does an excellent job. While Empire of the Sun could be described as a fluke (child actors can often pull off complex characters simply because they are so unself-conscious) and the next two films as passable, Newsies indicates that Bale is actually a good actor.
That still wouldn't have guaranteed his long-term success, of course. The number of popular teen/twenty-year-old actors who last exactly as long as a teen's attention span is . . . too vast to enumerate (Ralph Macchio, anyone?). But the talent was there; Bale was definitely growing into a knowledge of his own abilities to the point where there's a slightly uneven aspect to the film: while almost everyone else is good-natured and happy when called on to be good-natured and happy, Bale behaves in accordance with his character's background--to the point where I started to think, "Hmm, attachment disorder anyone?" He is entirely consistent, far more than anyone else in the film except David Moscow (of Big fame), with excellent comedic timing.
One problem--with the movie, not Bale: I realize Newsies is a family-friendly feature. I realize that despite the "true life" inspiration, this movie isn't really history. But the ending bugs me. Why can't the poor guy go to Santa Fe? All he's got in New York is a bunch of dysfunctional friends, a family he hardly knows (see attachment disorder above), and a job that pays him absolutely nothing. Geez, GO WEST, YOUNG MAN. It worked for Charles Howard of Seabiscuit fame.
Mike says musicals have never really struck me as very physical films. Sure, there's dancing, and singing, and the occasional big production number . . . but for some reason I always assumed the hardest part about them was the signing. In our last review, however, Kate mentioned the physicality of Bale's roles in the last few films. And I was rather surprised by how true that holds through Newsies.
The role of Jack is actually VERY physical, with fights, some respectable stunts, and some VERY demanding dance numbers. While I've always loved the film for the music and singing, this is really the first time I've fully appreciated the dancing. It also has me thinking back to other musicals, and seeing for the first time how demanding many of those dance numbers are.
Bale's performance is actually pretty impressive, as he leads the cast with what may be the most complex performance. While the other roles are well acted, Bale, and Duvall as Pulitzer, really knock it out of the park. Especially impressive is Bale's missing native English accent, which is pretty believably covered by his admittedly silly old New York/Brooklyn accent.
The story of the film, while inspired by historical events, has been given the full Disney treatment, falling in with the likes of Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame as shamefully over-sanitized family flicks. But after seeing the nightmarish mess that was Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd, I don't think sanitation of sad and hard events is a bad thing for a musical. It seems people really have to look healthy and happy to pull off singing their emotions.
I've discovered that every musical has at least one song I fast forward through (with the Buffy musical, it's "Under Your Spell," Mary Poppins is "Feed the Birds", and Willy Wonka is "Cheer up, Charlie"), but Newsies is my one exception. While "Santa Fe" definitely fills the same spot as the other songs I mentioned, it's surprisingly tolerable for the emotional song of the film.
The other thing that strikes me is the rather average skill level of the singing across the board. While all the actors sing better than I, they're all around the same quality of singer, and no one in the cast really stands out above the rest (with the possible exception of Medda, but she's the only character who "sings for real" in the reality of the movie, so she's supposed to be good). The thing I like about this is that they're all very believable singers . . . I fully believe these are the voices of average everyday people. Not great for an album; awesome for a musical.
Perhaps the only thing missing, for me, is the great big number with all the characters singing different lines and parts over each other. While I admittedly never understand a single word, it sure does sound nice!
Now, back to the discussion about who in the film is REALLY signing, and who is only singing metaphorically. . . . .
Labels:
Christian Bale,
Family-Friendly,
List 10,
Musical
Friday, June 1, 2012
Treasure Island (1990)
When: 1990, Bale's sixth film
Age: 16
Genre/Director: Action/Adventure; Charlton Heston's son, Fraser Clarke Heston
Mike says my only real thought while watching the film is how ADHD modern adventure films are with fast cuts, shaky cam, and elaborate action sequences.
This film, however, is charmingly simple in comparison: mild even. This mildness pervades every scene, to the point that suspenseful scenes have a way of sneaking up and past without much warning, and come as a surprise, well, MILD surprise. Such as when the row boat is leaving the ship with cannon fire hitting all around. The tone of the scene is so consistent with the rest of the movie, that it was with, again, mild shock that I watched the boat get hit and sink. Oh, I guess there was danger. Cool.
I'm not sure what it was exactly, whether it was the limited soundtrack, or the rather calm narration by Bale that made the film feel very passive . . . as if these things are happening, and we'll film them, but in a rather calm way.
Despite this description, I don't think it's a bad movie; rather I think the modern movie goer, such as myself, is used to far more stimulus than the standard story needs, which often results in films being far overdone to appease an overstimulated audience.
The sheer economy of this film is impressive. Not cost, so much as the restraint used to communicate only what the story needs. The film is actually very faithful to the novel, featuring scenes straight out of my memories of the original story.
Bale as Jim seems to be one of those "well duh" decisions. You have a very talented, well-reviewed, British child actor about the right age to portray a classic hero from literature. The young actor seems to like challenging and serious roles. In fact, one wonders if Bale saw this as a break, or "fun role" after a string of very serious dramatic roles.
As I mentioned, the narration isn't very moving, or even useful, but his performance throughout the film is fairly good, although somewhat mellow. The only real spark of mania in the film is Heston's Long John, a cheerfully enthusiastic performance that seems almost out of place in the film's otherwise calm and steady pace.
That truly sad part of all this is that the American audience has chosen Michael Bay films over this type of storytelling. Loud explosions every few seconds, lense flairs and dramatic poses wash the thoughts out of a viewer's mind. Treasure Island, on the other hand, seems to rely on the viewer's interaction and involvement as much as the novel did.
Now, could someone point me to the nearest explosion?
Kate says the one thing I really like about this film is that the pirates are complete thugs. They aren't romantic figures at all. Despite my enjoyment of Johnny Depp as "the worst pirate ever," I've never really understood the attraction of the pirating-life. Or why Disney Land would even have a pirates "ride."
But Treasure Island's pirates are greedy, selfish thieves. The clever cool-headedness of Israel Hands and Long John Silver is off-set by superstitious, short-sighted brutes. A few generations later, the latter pirates would be snorting their own drug supply.
In comparison, Long John Silver's amorality looks almost meritorious. But it is still an absence of moral thought or reasoning. Jim correctly identifies the squire, doctor, and Captain Smollett as more worthy of his loyalty despite their rather English, unimaginative stolidness.
It's a good story! And Turner Entertainment does a respectable job telling the story. Realizing that Charlton Heston's son directed the movie explained a lot to me, however. There have dozens of Treasure Island movies (including one from 2012!). Why this one at this time with these actors? I'm guessing it was a personal project.
And Charlton Heston does an excellent job as the scoundrel Long John who is both likable and detestable at the same time. And I get a kick out of Clive Wood as the captain. James Cosmos (of Highlander) shows up again to do his dying Scottish thing. In fact, the minor parts are quite well-played.
I wince to say it, but the remaining characters come off as rather more wooden (this was not my reaction as a youth, by the way)--at least in terms of dialog. Christian Bale's strength throughout the film does NOT lie in his verbal delivery of lines. Rather, his strength is in the sheer physical energy of his scenes. In general, the action scenes are the best part of the movie and are often quite evocative. Bale forcing Hands to move the ship is a particularly good one (though I do like the swivel cannon blowing things to smithereens; it reminds me of the Buffy episode "Innocence" when Buffy pulls out the rocket launcher).
I hadn't really realized--until beginning this list--how much Bale is in fact a physical actor. Amid the pigeon-holes of my brain, Bale was slotted into the "cerebral/artsy movies" hole despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
Not that Bale doesn't DO cerebral/artsy movies but, like Keanu Reeves, he tends towards physical action. Reeves--who is perhaps one of the most dreadful drama actors in existence (though I did like him in The Lake House)--is a magnificent physical actor. It never occurred to me until now that Bale--who is not usually a dreadful drama actor--belonged in the same category.
It seems Bale has been preparing for Batman for much longer than I realized!
Age: 16
Genre/Director: Action/Adventure; Charlton Heston's son, Fraser Clarke Heston
Mike says my only real thought while watching the film is how ADHD modern adventure films are with fast cuts, shaky cam, and elaborate action sequences.
This film, however, is charmingly simple in comparison: mild even. This mildness pervades every scene, to the point that suspenseful scenes have a way of sneaking up and past without much warning, and come as a surprise, well, MILD surprise. Such as when the row boat is leaving the ship with cannon fire hitting all around. The tone of the scene is so consistent with the rest of the movie, that it was with, again, mild shock that I watched the boat get hit and sink. Oh, I guess there was danger. Cool.
I'm not sure what it was exactly, whether it was the limited soundtrack, or the rather calm narration by Bale that made the film feel very passive . . . as if these things are happening, and we'll film them, but in a rather calm way.
Despite this description, I don't think it's a bad movie; rather I think the modern movie goer, such as myself, is used to far more stimulus than the standard story needs, which often results in films being far overdone to appease an overstimulated audience.
The sheer economy of this film is impressive. Not cost, so much as the restraint used to communicate only what the story needs. The film is actually very faithful to the novel, featuring scenes straight out of my memories of the original story.
Bale as Jim seems to be one of those "well duh" decisions. You have a very talented, well-reviewed, British child actor about the right age to portray a classic hero from literature. The young actor seems to like challenging and serious roles. In fact, one wonders if Bale saw this as a break, or "fun role" after a string of very serious dramatic roles.
As I mentioned, the narration isn't very moving, or even useful, but his performance throughout the film is fairly good, although somewhat mellow. The only real spark of mania in the film is Heston's Long John, a cheerfully enthusiastic performance that seems almost out of place in the film's otherwise calm and steady pace.
That truly sad part of all this is that the American audience has chosen Michael Bay films over this type of storytelling. Loud explosions every few seconds, lense flairs and dramatic poses wash the thoughts out of a viewer's mind. Treasure Island, on the other hand, seems to rely on the viewer's interaction and involvement as much as the novel did.
Now, could someone point me to the nearest explosion?
Kate says the one thing I really like about this film is that the pirates are complete thugs. They aren't romantic figures at all. Despite my enjoyment of Johnny Depp as "the worst pirate ever," I've never really understood the attraction of the pirating-life. Or why Disney Land would even have a pirates "ride."
But Treasure Island's pirates are greedy, selfish thieves. The clever cool-headedness of Israel Hands and Long John Silver is off-set by superstitious, short-sighted brutes. A few generations later, the latter pirates would be snorting their own drug supply.
In comparison, Long John Silver's amorality looks almost meritorious. But it is still an absence of moral thought or reasoning. Jim correctly identifies the squire, doctor, and Captain Smollett as more worthy of his loyalty despite their rather English, unimaginative stolidness.
It's a good story! And Turner Entertainment does a respectable job telling the story. Realizing that Charlton Heston's son directed the movie explained a lot to me, however. There have dozens of Treasure Island movies (including one from 2012!). Why this one at this time with these actors? I'm guessing it was a personal project.
And Charlton Heston does an excellent job as the scoundrel Long John who is both likable and detestable at the same time. And I get a kick out of Clive Wood as the captain. James Cosmos (of Highlander) shows up again to do his dying Scottish thing. In fact, the minor parts are quite well-played.
I wince to say it, but the remaining characters come off as rather more wooden (this was not my reaction as a youth, by the way)--at least in terms of dialog. Christian Bale's strength throughout the film does NOT lie in his verbal delivery of lines. Rather, his strength is in the sheer physical energy of his scenes. In general, the action scenes are the best part of the movie and are often quite evocative. Bale forcing Hands to move the ship is a particularly good one (though I do like the swivel cannon blowing things to smithereens; it reminds me of the Buffy episode "Innocence" when Buffy pulls out the rocket launcher).
I hadn't really realized--until beginning this list--how much Bale is in fact a physical actor. Amid the pigeon-holes of my brain, Bale was slotted into the "cerebral/artsy movies" hole despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
Not that Bale doesn't DO cerebral/artsy movies but, like Keanu Reeves, he tends towards physical action. Reeves--who is perhaps one of the most dreadful drama actors in existence (though I did like him in The Lake House)--is a magnificent physical actor. It never occurred to me until now that Bale--who is not usually a dreadful drama actor--belonged in the same category.
It seems Bale has been preparing for Batman for much longer than I realized!
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies,
Movies Based on Books
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Henry V
When: 1989, Bale's fifth film
Age: 15
Genre/Director: Shakespeare, History, Branagh
Kate says the next two films are far more jolly--I promise!
The thing I like about Branagh's Henry V specifically is how beautifully it is filmed, especially when I remember that it was filmed in something less than a month, using a terrifically small cast, on a small budget. The individual scenes are sparse, yet lush both in lighting and costuming. There are a few places where the lack of extras comes apparent (servants, not clergymen, would put Henry's robes on in the throne room scene). But otherwise, the tight focus on expressions and the use of mood lighting (the dark shadows in the throne room) make for a remarkably professional accomplishment.
And I'm a huge fan of Patrick Doyle's music (he also did the music for Thor).
The thing I like best about Branagh's Shakespeare in general is how everyday and real he renders what is, to all intents and purposes, rather arcane language. Part of this is that Branagh speaks Shakespeare like everyday language--there's no deliberate adherence to iambic pentameter or a sense of "this is Shakespeare" (I'm a big fan of Jacobi and love his voice, but he delivers Shakespeare far more in the "this is Shakespeare" tradition).
Also, in his Shakespeare films, Branagh often includes small but consistent behaviors that turn the language into conversation rather than speech: Brian Blessed's eye-rolling, Stephen Simms (Scroop) crying when confronted with his treachery; Ian Holm (the lovable Fluellen) looking bashful as he speaks to the king; Christopher Ravenscroft (Montjoy the Herald) becoming more and more impressed by the young king, Henry. All these small marks add depth and understanding to the film.
It is a rather sad film though with a far more definite purpose, less documentary feel, than Empire. What does a good king do? How does a good king behave? I had a professor who claimed that Branagh's version is pro-war; I don't think it is pro-anything. I think Branagh, and Shakespeare, were trying to work out the effects that war has, good and bad, on a king and his subjects and their families. It's more a psychological study than anything.
Though it does make me wonder what the world would be like today if France was a permanent extension of England. But history being what it is, Henry died within six years of Agincourt of dysentery.
As for Christian Bale--this movie isn't a showcase for his talents like Empire. Mostly, he is in it as much as he is because Branagh had a very small cast. So--every group scene: hey, there's Bale again! However, it is an interesting early reference to Bale's tendency to skip between Hollywood and more arty films.
I do have a kind of amusing anecdote related to Bale's appearance in this movie. I was showing the St. Crispin's Day speech to a group of student and made an off-hand remark about "Batman" making an appearance. Bale is shown several times during the speech. But when I turned off the DVD, the students were confused. They'd expected to see, well, BATMAN.
Now there's an interesting, Monty-Python type image to contemplate.
Mike says Kate's review totally had me thinking about what a superhero/Shakespeare mash-up might be like.... Then I remembered the awesomeness that is Thor. As such, Branagh is one of the only people on the planet who could get me to watch Shakespeare during my video game time.
As a fan of British television, one of the cool little bonuses that came with watching this film was seeing so many actors I have seen in other works. Also cool was realizing that the second Harry Potter film was a reunion of sorts for Branagh and company, as many of his Henry co-stars would later join the Potter franchise.
The quality of the film is impressive, and the performances human, for the most part. Seeing Shakespeare alive and vibrant is always inspirational to we English Majors, despite the depressing nature of many of his tales.
Perhaps my favorite part of the film was the use of the narrator, which was cleverly used by the Bard as a way to overcome the shortcomings of the stage. While film addresses these shortcomings completely, the narrator's use is still appropriate and brilliant.... plus, I'm a sucker for narration.
As far as Christian Bale is concerned, well, he's in it. As Kate says, the film says far more about his career choices than his style or ability. Though, it is safe to say he likes to act in dramas.
While a very worthy adaptation, I do have to say the battle scene was a bit grotesque.... and even for a guy who enjoys the occasional sword fight, six enemies stabbing one guy to death is a bit excessive, though it pales to the piles of dead teenagers.
The end of the play has always intrigued me. It's almost as if Shakespeare felt bad about how depressing and sad the play was (he killed Falstaff, for goodness sake!) and decided to tack a mini romantic-comedy on the end. It works to lighten the mood, but is still an odd shift in tone.
The funny part about all of this, of course, is that despite these flaws, the film is at least a bit more cheery than the last. WWII trumps Shakespeare in depression-inspiring storytelling... who would've thought?
Age: 15
Genre/Director: Shakespeare, History, Branagh
Kate says the next two films are far more jolly--I promise!
The thing I like about Branagh's Henry V specifically is how beautifully it is filmed, especially when I remember that it was filmed in something less than a month, using a terrifically small cast, on a small budget. The individual scenes are sparse, yet lush both in lighting and costuming. There are a few places where the lack of extras comes apparent (servants, not clergymen, would put Henry's robes on in the throne room scene). But otherwise, the tight focus on expressions and the use of mood lighting (the dark shadows in the throne room) make for a remarkably professional accomplishment.
And I'm a huge fan of Patrick Doyle's music (he also did the music for Thor).
The thing I like best about Branagh's Shakespeare in general is how everyday and real he renders what is, to all intents and purposes, rather arcane language. Part of this is that Branagh speaks Shakespeare like everyday language--there's no deliberate adherence to iambic pentameter or a sense of "this is Shakespeare" (I'm a big fan of Jacobi and love his voice, but he delivers Shakespeare far more in the "this is Shakespeare" tradition).
Also, in his Shakespeare films, Branagh often includes small but consistent behaviors that turn the language into conversation rather than speech: Brian Blessed's eye-rolling, Stephen Simms (Scroop) crying when confronted with his treachery; Ian Holm (the lovable Fluellen) looking bashful as he speaks to the king; Christopher Ravenscroft (Montjoy the Herald) becoming more and more impressed by the young king, Henry. All these small marks add depth and understanding to the film.
It is a rather sad film though with a far more definite purpose, less documentary feel, than Empire. What does a good king do? How does a good king behave? I had a professor who claimed that Branagh's version is pro-war; I don't think it is pro-anything. I think Branagh, and Shakespeare, were trying to work out the effects that war has, good and bad, on a king and his subjects and their families. It's more a psychological study than anything.
Though it does make me wonder what the world would be like today if France was a permanent extension of England. But history being what it is, Henry died within six years of Agincourt of dysentery.
As for Christian Bale--this movie isn't a showcase for his talents like Empire. Mostly, he is in it as much as he is because Branagh had a very small cast. So--every group scene: hey, there's Bale again! However, it is an interesting early reference to Bale's tendency to skip between Hollywood and more arty films.
I do have a kind of amusing anecdote related to Bale's appearance in this movie. I was showing the St. Crispin's Day speech to a group of student and made an off-hand remark about "Batman" making an appearance. Bale is shown several times during the speech. But when I turned off the DVD, the students were confused. They'd expected to see, well, BATMAN.
Now there's an interesting, Monty-Python type image to contemplate.
Mike says Kate's review totally had me thinking about what a superhero/Shakespeare mash-up might be like.... Then I remembered the awesomeness that is Thor. As such, Branagh is one of the only people on the planet who could get me to watch Shakespeare during my video game time.
As a fan of British television, one of the cool little bonuses that came with watching this film was seeing so many actors I have seen in other works. Also cool was realizing that the second Harry Potter film was a reunion of sorts for Branagh and company, as many of his Henry co-stars would later join the Potter franchise.
The quality of the film is impressive, and the performances human, for the most part. Seeing Shakespeare alive and vibrant is always inspirational to we English Majors, despite the depressing nature of many of his tales.
Perhaps my favorite part of the film was the use of the narrator, which was cleverly used by the Bard as a way to overcome the shortcomings of the stage. While film addresses these shortcomings completely, the narrator's use is still appropriate and brilliant.... plus, I'm a sucker for narration.
As far as Christian Bale is concerned, well, he's in it. As Kate says, the film says far more about his career choices than his style or ability. Though, it is safe to say he likes to act in dramas.
While a very worthy adaptation, I do have to say the battle scene was a bit grotesque.... and even for a guy who enjoys the occasional sword fight, six enemies stabbing one guy to death is a bit excessive, though it pales to the piles of dead teenagers.
The end of the play has always intrigued me. It's almost as if Shakespeare felt bad about how depressing and sad the play was (he killed Falstaff, for goodness sake!) and decided to tack a mini romantic-comedy on the end. It works to lighten the mood, but is still an odd shift in tone.
The funny part about all of this, of course, is that despite these flaws, the film is at least a bit more cheery than the last. WWII trumps Shakespeare in depression-inspiring storytelling... who would've thought?
 |
| Okay, so I couldn't help myself--besides, I think Shakespeare |
| would approve!~Kate |
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies,
Shakespeare
Friday, May 18, 2012
Empire of the Sun
When: 1987, Bale's fourth film
Age: 12-13
Genre/Director: True story, Spielberg
Mike says I usually avoid this type of film, and, as my viewing reminded me last night, I probably will for the rest of my life. I can recognize that it’s a powerful and well-made film. But for me, a war movie needs something fictional (aliens, giant robots, elves, Time Lords, etc.) in order to make it tolerable.
Instead, I have to choke down a film where HORRIBLE things happen to a young child, such as being separated from a parent, witnessing multiple deaths, war time violence, starvation, and captivity all without the benefit of any fictional “spoonful of sugar” equivalent to ease the passage of such bitter and depressing events.
While I have a whole rant about this topic in general, I’ll save it and just say that I avoid serious, heart-wrenching dramas for the same reason I avoid the news- -it stresses me out!
As such, I really don’t have many positive things to say about the film. I think the film is beautiful to look at, and found that it didn’t feel dated or old by any standard; in fact, it is only the young faces of known actors that really show how old the movie is.
I have to credit Christian Bale; even as a young man, he was a phenomenal actor. Every part of his emotional journey, even those parts that don’t have any real moral other than pure suffering, is believable. Bale is instantly believable and unlikable as the spoiled brat, and through his journey, we see him grow… though I can’t say if he ever becomes likable. I don’t sympathize or empathize with the character… rather, I pity him. Lost in a world beyond his comprehension, he has no choice but to slowly lose his grip on his values, his sanity, and nearly reality itself.
For a 12-year-old actor to so convincingly portray a descent into madness (that wasn't caused by hormones) is really quite impressive.
So impressive and believable was his performance that it merely enhanced the pure agony I experienced while enduring the film. I have no doubt that the film is historically accurate (and looks as much), and I have no trouble imagining several children went through a very similar journey. And I have to admit that the film is excellently made, directed, and acted.
But here’s the thing . . . Real life can be so damned depressing, it’s really not much fun to dwell on the horrible things that happen to people . . . especially not as a form of entertainment.
But here’s the thing . . . Real life can be so damned depressing, it’s really not much fun to dwell on the horrible things that happen to people . . . especially not as a form of entertainment.
Even worse is the brutal reality that Spielberg hammers in with each horrible incident--not only are these thing awful, but they are meaningless, random happenings without cause or explanation. Sure, these are consequences of war, but there’s still no one for Jim to hold responsible. The film is the story of his coming to grips with just how unforgiving life can be. His going mad seems to be the only rational action he can take in a world so empty of hope.
The end of the film was the director's last chance to redeem himself in my eyes; the last chance to explain to me, justify, what I had endured with the character. What lesson had I learned? What truth would I be rewarded with? Instead, we’re given only the scene of parents discovering the remains of their child--a scarred and traumatized child that may never lead a normal life. I understand that this is a very jaded and cynical view of the end of the film, but two things should be taken into consideration.
First, I work in children’s mental health, and I’ve seen that traumatic events aren’t so easily overcome as Hollywood would like us to think. And second, it’s a cynical and jaded film that takes no opportunity to show the good side of the world. Jim sees only misery, even to the point that the two things that seem to bring him hope--God and Airplanes--both lose their magic with the news of the dropping of the atomic bomb.
The good news is that after a film like this, Shakespeare is going to feel downright CHEERFUL.
Kate says the remarkable aspect of this film is the lack of heavy-messaging (which often shows up in Spielberg's later films). The story is so entirely from Jim's point of view that the film remains almost one of observation rather than commentary.
The observation does bring to light several fascinating ideas, such as the ability of human beings to adapt and the tendency for context to lose historical or cultural relevancy--Jim adapts to camp life with little trouble and even enjoys it. Even after the March to Nantao, he doesn't begin to place his experience into some kind of narrative until he hears the radio broadcast about the bombing of Japan: oh, this is what is happening to me.
It reminds me of the scene from Hope and Glory where the school children cheer when their school is bombed. Context is exactly what it means to them at that moment.
If there is a theme, it is rendered through Jim's relationship with Bassie. Jim undergoes a Maslow's hierarchy type of development whereby his natural, and useful, desire for survival is eradicated, rather than intensified, by the war--first, by his desire for affection; next, by his self-actualization or acknowledgment of his own situation: he is a child who has come through an impossible situation. He ends by turning his back on Bassie; although the film doesn't pass judgment on Bassie, Jim perceives that Bassie's Lord of the Flies philosophy is not enough to explain what he has gone through.
Consequently, to me, the final scene is a huge relief--like coming through the bottle-neck. Jim is finally able to relinquish the burden of his own survival; he'll never be the innocent, normal schoolboy again (the briefly flashed-on self-image that he tries to save at the end), but he'll be able to surrender his responsibilities for a time and simply belong. He is moving up the hierarchy.
Consequently, to me, the final scene is a huge relief--like coming through the bottle-neck. Jim is finally able to relinquish the burden of his own survival; he'll never be the innocent, normal schoolboy again (the briefly flashed-on self-image that he tries to save at the end), but he'll be able to surrender his responsibilities for a time and simply belong. He is moving up the hierarchy.
It is in many ways a heart-rending film and brought me to tears several times--not the sort of film I watch over and over and over again to relax! However, I have to argue with Mike (slightly) regarding the lack of positive scenes: I think there are many but, again, I think Spielberg steps back from any kind of judgment about what is occurring. He simply lets us see how the British established their camp--the willingness of Dr. Rawlins to defend his hospital and follow the sick on their journey; the weary amusement of Jim's foster mother towards his hyperactiveness; the odd kindness of the Japanese soldiers towards the retarded young man who would never become a pilot in other circumstances (although that kindness is tempered by the question of motive); Jim's kindness towards the same young man; the fellowship of the non-Kamikaze Japanese pilots with Jim (Saint-Exupery suggests in his books that flying is a higher calling than anything else, putting astronauts and pilots in a different realm from ordinary mortals). And before the camp scenes, I was impressed by Jim's father's lack of prejudice; at first, he seems like an self-satisfied Britisher who is thoughtless and tunnel-visioned, but in just a few minutes, he is shown as more insightful, tolerant, and compassionate than he initially appears.
This is the quintessential show-don't-tell movie.
This is the quintessential show-don't-tell movie.
As for Christian Bale: it is fairly appropriate that this is the first film of his portfolio we are reviewing. Bale is a relatively unusual actor since he started so young yet has continued to be successful. Often, child stars have trouble leaping the gap between the "cute" years and films that require more than kootchie-kootchie-koo reactions. Look at Shirley Temple. And what will Daniel Radcliffe be doing in twenty years?
Bale does a rather remarkable job although I think he is strongest at the beginning and end of the film. The middle of the film seems to falter into "cuteness" territory; Bale owns the character less. However, in comparison to other child actors, Bale's portrayal of Jim Graham is a true tour de force.
And I always appreciate an appearance by Nigel Havers!
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies Based on Books
Friday, May 11, 2012
Actor's Portfolio: Christian Bale
List 10 will be an overview of films starring Christian Bale.
Mike and Kate picked Mr. Bale because (1) he has starred in a truly eclectic group of films, including Disney's Pocahontas--no, sorry, it didn't make it on the list; (2) this will deposit us directly on the release date of Dark Knight Rises. After all, we had so much fun reviewing Avenger's "live," why not do another superhero's movie (though of a very different type)!?
Here's the list:
10. Empire of the Sun
9. Henry V
8. Treasure Island
7. Newsies
6. Little Women
5. Equilibrium
4. Howl's Moving Castle
3. The Prestige
2. Dark Knight (Mike and Kate reviewed Batman Begins for List 9)
1. Dark Knight Rises, July 20, 2012
The reviews will start next weekend, May 18th-19th.
Mike and Kate picked Mr. Bale because (1) he has starred in a truly eclectic group of films, including Disney's Pocahontas--no, sorry, it didn't make it on the list; (2) this will deposit us directly on the release date of Dark Knight Rises. After all, we had so much fun reviewing Avenger's "live," why not do another superhero's movie (though of a very different type)!?
Here's the list:
10. Empire of the Sun
9. Henry V
8. Treasure Island
7. Newsies
6. Little Women
5. Equilibrium
4. Howl's Moving Castle
3. The Prestige
2. Dark Knight (Mike and Kate reviewed Batman Begins for List 9)
1. Dark Knight Rises, July 20, 2012
The reviews will start next weekend, May 18th-19th.
Labels:
Christian Bale,
List 10,
Movies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)