THE MASTER
P. T. Anderson's last film 'There Will Be Blood' was a masterpiece; this isn't quite that, but it is almost as impossible to talk about. David Lynch once explained how the beautiful language of cinema should not be translated back into words once a film is complete, and Anderson's movies seem to illustrate his point. Since Magnolia he has sat somewhere between Kubrick and Lynch, making films utterly without compromise and completely enthralling; I for one hope he continues to do so. He always seems intent, like Kubrick, on finding a new language of film; his voice is very unique, and consequently not to everyone's taste. It is funny how he and Tarantino are very good friends and mutual admirers, since as film makers, you could hardly imagine two directors with approaches more different!
The Master is far more a character study than it is a narrative, and many may find this frustrating. A look at opportunistic power, religion, the role of belief systems, their pros and cons, and America at this point in history, it is long and heavygoing. Nevertheless, with another strange and superb Johnny Greenwood (Radiohead) soundtrack, stunning cinematograhy, outstanding performances all round, particularly from the ever infallible P S Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix (who looks strangely terrifying as the vulnerable veteran, whose trauma is literally made manifest in his twisted physicality) and Amy Adams (a million miles from The Muppets here), this is a must for cinema fans. Despite its form, I would say this is certainly an Oscar contender in at least a couple of categories. I do understand it is a difficult movie, and it may be worth familiarising yourself with Anderson first, but if you want near masterful cinema, when you do get a chance, check this out.
4/5
Catch if it you like: David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood
William Friedkin is rarely one to tread on eggshells; from the visceral power of 'The Exorcist' to the radical characterisation in 'The French Connection' to the uncompromising adaption of Tracy Letts' play 'Bug', he opposes the notion of watering anything down for an audience. In fact, by his own words, he comes from a school where confrontation and challenge were desired, adult storytelilng for people who understand art can engage, enlighten and infuriate as much as it can lightly entertain. Whether times and audiences have changed is debatable, but what certainly isn't is that Friedkin has not, for here he is with a second adaption of a Tracy Letts play, and it may be the most nasty, twisted, scuzzy release this year, one which has the power to drop jaws (literally) and draw genuine gasps and howls from the audience. A rarity. Where 'Bug' clearly dealt with post-9/11 themes of paranoia and fear, and wouldn't have been out of place in David Cronenberg's catalogue, 'Killer Joe' is a more sloppy affair, whose comment on "trailer trash American culture, morality and familial breakdown", if indeed that is at all what it is, is tougher to discern. What remains clear, however, is both Letts' desire, and Friendkin's ability, to shock and appaul an audience.
Emile Hirsch is possibly the weakest link of the cast, as the young drug dealer who ropes his dad and stepmother into a noir plot to off his estranged mother in order to collect her life insurance. Thankfully, the rest of the cast hold their scenes up and carry Hirsch nicely, with Thomas Haden Church in particular bringing a great deal of humour with him. The fact the last thing I saw him in was 'We Bought A Zoo' only makes this cast seem more surreal. The UK's own Juno Temple is perfect as the innocent, simple sister in all this, drawn against her will and in the most underhanded way, into the arrangement.
The movie is utterly owned by Matthew McConaughey, though. Fans only familiar with his rom-com King/sex symbol status are in for a nasty/exhilirating shock. His performance as Joe is incredibly powerful; it reminds us that he is actually a great actor (we all recall 'A Time To Kill'?), and that he has a level to which, even in his most heavy roles, we have not seen him go before...and here it is! The less said about where he goes with the character the better, but let's say he has created a screen presence as intense and intimidating as Dennis Hopper's Frank Booth in Lynch's 'Blue Velvet'. It reached a point fairly quickly where he didn't actually have to be doing anything, and I found myself on edge just because of his presence. If he does not receive a 'Best Actor' nomination, there will be something very wrong.
The movie has its problems, but they are not really worth mentioning. It isn't quite the maserpiece I secretly wanted him to have created, but it is a stunning-looking, extreme, startling vision, which has more moments of important, well-observed subtext than I think can be picked up on in one sitting. Due to its sexual politics and surprising moments of extremity, it caused walkouts, prompted conversations over just how nasty and depraved a film should be allowed to be, and caused young ladies to get all up in a huff over their dreamboat's decision to be part of something so vile. Don't say you weren't warned.
Certificate 18 for a reason, this is 'Blue Velvet' meets 'Blood Simple' via 'American Psycho' with a dash of Quentin Tarantino. Slightly surreal, very tough to watch, but even harder to look away from. It will make you laugh, gasp, cringe, and leave having to talk about it. You will experience something intense, whether you like it or not, and sometimes, as William "The Exorcist" Friedkin would undoubtedly say, that is what it's all about.
I saw this a few months back; you can rent or buy this now!
4/5
Catch it if you like: Blue Velvet, Bug
COSMOPOLIS
David Cronenberg is a film maker who, for
over 30 years, has refused to work anywhere other than at the edge. He
is the director known for pioneering body horror, dealing with concepts
that push any audience willing to take the ride to consider that which
they wouldn't otherwise. Known for his ability to use visual metaphor
in the way a novelist or poet might use a literary one, the closest to
blockbusting success he has come would be 'The Fly'. At some point he
made a transition, not necessarily a conscious effort on his part, but a
clear change nevertheless. The common themes of his work remain, the
ideas of psychology, identity, transformation, the horror within, etc.
but recently we have seen a more subtle approach, with finesse of
performance and what is being said taking precedence over purely
visceral assault and visual effects. From this "new" Cronenberg we have
seen unsung masterpieces ('A History Of Violence'), modest successes
('Eastern Promises'), and he has proven himself to be somebody not
afraid of adapting for the screen dangerous material that most wouldn't
dare touch ('Crash' and 'A Dangerous Method'). 'Cosmopolis' sees him
doing the latter again, and definitely with the greatest sense of
experimentation so far. The film falls in the category into which we
would put David Lynch's most surreal work, one for cinema that defies
description as simply good or bad, and instead invites you to an
experience, one whose quality only YOU can decide. Adapted from the Don Delillo book, which was already pointedly distant, David Cronenberg's latest offering has drawn a fair deal of negative criticism for retaining the detached approach of the novel, and for being, it would seem, deliberately cold and apparently uninterested in its audience. Cold it is, most certainly; indeed if it were any colder it could sink Titanic all over again, but quite honestly this is the only truly valid criticism of the film, and I don't even consider it a criticism so much as an observation. Its coldness is clearly intentional due to the subject matter, and much like an iceberg, what you think you've seen on first inspection turns out to be just a bit of what's actually going on. Indeed for a film set for the most part in a silent (really, completely silent!) limousine, it is one you can delve into surprisingly deeply, and find level after level of meaty ideas to chew on.
Truth of the matter is this movie was never going to receive huge commercial success, it is simply too divisive for obvious reasons:
- A tough, obtuse novel that reads like a discombobulating dream
- A director who adapts it almost directly, creating arguably his most experimental film, and if anything emphasizing all the more the metaphoric devices of the story.
- Casting a teen heartthrob from one of the biggest cinema series of all time in the lead, making it immediately eligible for the mainstream audience, a brave choice on both parts. A fair amount of people walking into this film are "seeing the new R Pattinson film" and have no idea what they are in for. I am just thankful to see clear signs that the man himself is not impressed with his starting point; I look forward to a lot more grown up, serious work from this guy, as it is clear there is some talent there. He has already signed up on the next Cronenberg picture alongside Viggo Mortensen, so we shall see what happens. Let's hope he is serious about wanting to distance himself from it all.
Put this all together and you have a small, experimental film that you have to be completely prepared for, one that is purposefully aloof and probably disappointing to at least half the audience who weren't to know any better. On the other hand, you have a master of his craft making cinema from an un-cinematic source that is essentially metaphor piled upon metaphor, drawing a compelling performance from a lead who I never thought I'd like, and creating something which, despite all that has been said about its impenetrability, actually managed to pull me in to a point where I wanted to know where it was all leading.
So where does it all lead? An inevitable showdown with an acting veteran, a 20 minute scene, driven by some stunning dialogue. It is a scene I think Stanley Kubrick would have been proud to put his name to; as he once said, "It might be real, but it's not interesting." Well I think 'Cosmopolis' proves his point nicely; it may not be "real" but there is definitely something exciting happening that I didn't want to walk away from. If you are still on board by the end, it will knock your socks off and bring the film to a close in a way that makes some strange, demented sense, and even carve out some empathy, though who you feel it for may be unclear.
I completely appreciate this is a niche
film, and many either won't understand it, or won't work to engage with
it at all. Certainly most people going for the star are going to leave
confused. If, however, you are a Cronenberg fan and you want to see him
treading some genuinely new cinematic ground, or you simply have
patience and an understanding that cinema does not necessarily have to
make full sense to be exciting, try this out. Certainly due to be the
strangest film this year, but one I can't stop replaying in my head and
wanting to watch again for reasons I can't even explain. Pattinson's
character Eric says, "Show me something I don't know." This echoes
nicely the attitude with which you need to approach this film to even
stand a chance of getting into it, but if you can you might just be
surprised. My rating reflects a general audience potential view of the film balanced with my own feelings on it...I kiss Cronenberg's ass more than most reading might, so I'm trying to be fair :) You can rent or buy this now.
3.5 / 5
Catch it if you like: David Cronenberg, or the idea of Robert Pattinson actually performing
No comments:
Post a Comment