Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Review: J. Edgar

J. Edgar
Dir. Clint Eastwood
Country: USA
Aus Rating: M15+
Running Time: 137mins

Hounded at every turn by a smothering mother, unable to freely express his love for a male co-worker in a conservative political landscape, disrespected by colleagues, and prone to bouts of cowardice at moments that called for heroics; it’s easy to assume that J Edgar Hoover lived a very sad life. None of that compares, however, to how drearily sad the film of his life, J. Edgar, is. Clint Eastwood directs his expansive tale with a wash of drab colours – the brown colour palate of Tomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy looks positively lively compared to the metallic near monochrome colour scheme of Eastwood and cinematographer Tom Stern – and a never-ending heavy-handedness. It’s Eastwood’s second film in a year that has been suffocated at the hands of grand ambitions that failed to materialise when a more intimate approach probably would have worked better.

Coming hot on the heals of the improbable box office success of Phyllida Lloyd’s The Iron Lady, J. Edgar takes a near identical flashback heavy approach to the life of Hoover, rather lazily played here by Leonardo DiCaprio, as an older, frail man looks back over his life. While it thankfully doesn’t use that terrible Margaret Thatcher biopic’s absurd ghost motif to get from one Wikipedia entry heading to the next, it does haphazardly jump around through time and space as if at whim with little thought as to how one memory leads to another. Why do the people in these sorts of films always have such perfectly linear, chronological memory?


As if the dour cinematography, lit seemingly only by low watt lamps and natural light filtered through grey skies, Eastwood’s twinkly jingle jangle score would certainly put a sour mood over the proceedings. Perhaps he is to be commended for eschewing the traditional overwrought John Williams type of music, but those same incessant piano keys getting stroked over and over again like some villainous cat is nigh on nauseating.

Of course, as tends to happen with films of this type, really interesting stuff is either glossed over or chucked out altogether. The screenplay by Dustin Lance Black (re-using his Milk structure to diminishing returns) appears to be trying to have it both ways, dotting the script with big grand moments of historical significance alongside small scenes between Edgar and his mother, played by Judi Dench on Autopilot, and his alleged lover and Associate FBI director, a wide-eyed Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson. Rarely complimenting each other in any way, I couldn’t help but suspect there was more interesting stuff to be said, especially since the private sequences are quite clearly just pulled out of thin air. Where was the public’s reaction to his private life? Where was the motivation behind the loyalty of Naomi Watts’ Helen Gandy? The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, a sequence addresses rumours of a fondness for cross-dressing is doesn’t feel like an organic part of the story at all, just merely tacked on for effect.


Too long, for sure, Eastwood and his editors, Joel Cox and Gary Roach, could have made the near two and a half hour length much less unwieldy by cutting out the unnecessarily repetitive scenes of Hoover recounting his memoirs to an eager fellow FBI agent (who puts new meaning to the term “paper pusher”). As DiCaprio’s heavily made-up elderly Hoover extols blank cheque platitudes about democracy, freedom and the fine line between right and wrong, it’s hard not to find the eyes rolling (or, even worse, drooping). Featuring some downright frightening make-up work on Armie Hammer – looking like some scary pod person from whence an alien entity is soon to burst free – and some truly ridiculous political impersonation – Christopher Shyer as Richard Nixon is just off the chart bad – gives J. Edgar an at times comical edge. Although I probably would have preferred some good ol’ fashioned hoots, Eastwood’s film is too much of a sad sack to let us even have that. The life of what the posters tell us is “the most powerful man in the world” has been filtered through so many sieves that it’s rendered dull. D-

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Review: This is Not a Film

This is Not a Film
Dir. Jafar Panahi & Mojbata Mirtahmasb
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: G
Running Time: 75mins

Iranian director Jafar Panahi claims that his latest documentary is “not a film.” Well, if he says so. Who are we to debate with this man on his own creative endeavour? This is Not a Film certainly doesn’t abide by standard filmic traits, even those of a documentary, so it could definitely be argued that Panahi’s title is on point. And just to further prove his point, Panahi and co-director Mojbata Mirtahmasb made it on a digital camcorder (and at one stage an iPhone.) It really isn’t a film at all!


Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Review: Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape

It may appear to be nothing more than a glorified DVD extra, having appeared on “Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide”, but what Jake West’s documentary Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape lacks in length, big name interviewees and theatrical prestige it gains in pure thorough entertainment. An obvious relative to Mark Hartley’s Not Quite Hollywood, which looked at the bawdy “ozploitation” films of the 1970s and ‘80s, West’s film is never the less a more historical look at a time when British politics went mad and aimed to silence filmmakers for simply failing to adhere to the prehistoric borders of good taste and decency.

Beginning with a superbly edited and comically ridiculous three minute montage of “the 72 films that changed Britain forever” (as the tagline suggests), Video Nasties then aims to educate viewers on the hows and whys, ins and outs of just what was so deemed so bad about these films, who was responsible for their subsequent banning and the fall out from what was tantamount of a right ol’ book burning, but with beta and VHS piled up instead of paper and bindings.


Jake West comes from a background of horror movie DVD featurettes as well as direct-to-DVD sequels like Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes and has directed and edited Video Nasties himself. For the first 10 minutes or so he throws in VHS-style “grindhouse effects” like tracking symbols, fuzziness and looping, but downplays it after a short while. The 72 running time (coincidental or deliberate?) feels like it could easily have been extended, but that’s probably more an issue of time and budget than West’s skills behind the camera. Unfortunately though, Video Nasties lacks a sort of bravura authoritativeness that Not Quite Hollywood had in spades.

His interview subjects are fascinating, but apart from several big(ish) name directors like Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers) and Christopher Smith (Severance, Triangle) and some important political figures of the time, they lack depth. Their expertise on the topic somewhat makes up for this, but it’s a shame West and his producers couldn’t nab a big name like Hartley did with Quentin Tarantino, Dennis Hopper or the seemingly never-ending parade of cast and crew that were directly involved in the making of the “ozploitation” films that particular movie covered. It is interesting to hear them speak on something I’ve noted personally several times, that watching these movies on blu-ray almost defeats the purpose of them. The example of A Serbian Film is used, saying that it looks too good to be a true “video nasty”, the value of which comes from being grungy and done so that you either believe it’s really happening (Cannibal Holocaust) or so over-the-top that you can’t believe anybody ever thought it was scary (Night of the Bloody Apes).

If Video Nasties does improve upon Not Quite Hollywood in one aspect, it’s the way its subjects have such a strong historical context in the censorship debate. A debate that, it must be sadly noted, is still raging to this day, at least here in Australia (what with movies being banned and the like). West’s clip selections – film and vintage news – are also a riot, and it’s fascinating to see footage from so many movies and laugh at the thought that the overly silly violence was deemed too indecent for the British public. Hearing Marshall, Smith and the others discuss that thrill of entering a video store during those early years of video tapes and discovering the world that cinema would open up to them is something all cinephiles will identify with and find humour in.


Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape is not a perfect documentary, but it tells a wonderful story that is rarely discussed about in these days of everything being available to anyone, anywhere at the click of a mouse. It’s important to remember that Apocalypse Now, The Big Red One and even poor, defenceless The Best Little Whore House in Texas were once taken off the shelves purely because some people deemed fit to monitor the public’s viewing habits thought they sounded offensive and would corrupt the masses. Movie lovers should watch this and imagine what could possible happen in 2011 of a similar nature. Perhaps that’s a topic for another DVD. B

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Review: GasLand

GasLand
Dir. Josh Fox
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: PG
Running Time: 104mins

Narration has been a notoriously tricky concept for cinema to grasp from time to time. Blade Runner and Dark City have each waged wars against studio-enforced narration that single-handedly peeled back a curtain that didn’t need to be peeled. At other times it can make the most traditional of film feel like it’s hitting you over the head with its message. However, sometimes narration is very helpful and, at least in documentaries, it can be of the utmost important. Sometimes you can be Deep Water and be blessed with the voice of Tilda Swinton, or sometimes you can be a filmmaker like Michael Moore, whose voice is certainly one that can enliven and empower a film. And then there are films like GasLand where first-time documentary filmmaker Josh Fox has provided his own narration and come perilously close to hampering his own film.

Lucky for Fox that GasLand revolves around such a fascinating topic, then, isn’t it? Receiving a letter one day from a natural gas company he promptly picked up a camera and went around the country, trying to discover everything he could about the debatable ethics that circle the issue of natural gas farming. And as Australia enters the production field, audiences should have their ears pricked for the message of GasLand.


The message, from a broad sense, is one we’ve seen plenty of times before in non-fiction and fiction films alike. Whether it be Roger & Me or Erin Brockovich (the latter of which could almost be telling the movie version of the GasLand tale, even down to the scene where corporate officials are offered a glass of the water they say isn’t contaminated, only to turn it down), we’ve all been made keenly aware that corporations are bad, but as Fox’s observant camera shows us, they’re also incredibly stupid. There are times in this movie that audiences will be truly baffled by not only how clueless these companies can be, but at the near unfathomable level of stupidity that they think even the most modest of country living folk must be to accept their bunkum. Fox's examination of how the Bush government - and, specifically, Vice President Dick Cheney - made the natural gas production company's practices exempt from the regulations that would make it illegal is particularly interesting, galling and despicable whilst really just calling into question why anybody would believe a government that would allow this.

Fox has certainly done a good job of collecting an interesting slate of people affected by the unhealthy side-effects of natural gas drilling – a process known as “Hydraulic Fracturing” that sends countless amounts of chemicals into the ground in order to extract the precious natural gas that lies in multi-statewide underground oceans, resulting in contaminated water and illness to both humans and livestock. A more cynical filmmaker may have tried to locate more “colourful” locals, but Fox’s participants, some of whom even demonstrate the flammable water that is now gurgling through their pipes, are all genuine and likeable people that are immensely watchable.


His trip across America from his home state of Pennsylvania is entertaining as it is horrific. The most distressing moment for some will be one involving the cruel effects of the drilling on farm animals and domestic pets, but the moments of comedic relief provided by setting fire to water by the oft jovial participants Fox has assembled as well as some nice lively presentations of stale facts alleviates the shock and makes sure GasLand isn’t one big misery-filled lecture on how close to hell these mass corporations are willing to send us. I wish Fox had purchased a tripod – or, hell, even just placed the camera on a box or a chair – since the handheld camera movements can induce queasiness from time to time. I think we can all agree that it's hard to get your message across when everyone's getting dizzy because you can't hold your camera still for five minutes, right?

However, shaky cameras can be forgiven, but, as I spoke of initially, if GasLand has one major problem that is almost impossible for me to overcome it is Fox himself. Having given himself narration duties, he has unfortunately not realised that his voice is not suitable at all! His dry, slow delivery is routinely punctuated by invisible ellipses’ and gaps. He’s far more entertaining when he’s not reading from a script and is merely interacting with the residents affected by the likes of Halliburton. When spontaneity is removed and pre-written words are placed in his mouth, Fox loses every ounce of personality and interest (at least in this viewer). At the early hour that I saw GasLand, I am not ashamed to say he put me to sleep for the briefest of moments. It’s an unfortunate aspect of what is a regularly fascinating documentary that should be taken very seriously. The discovery of natural gas resources under Australia, and the selling of land to companies already, means that we will surely be hearing more and more about this in the near future. If you see GasLand you’ll be ahead of the curve in your outrage and, rare for a documentary these days about the environment, it might actually be preaching to more than just the choir. And that’s almost as cool as playing a banjo whilst wearing a gasmask in front of a processing plant. B

CAN YOU DO THIS WITH YOUR TAP WATER? from JOSHFOX on Vimeo.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Review: The Special Relationship

The Special Relationship
Dir. Richard Loncraine
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 92mins

It should come as no surprise after viewing The Special Relationship that it was originally produced for America’s esteemed HBO. The success of prior Peter Morgan-written films like The Queen and Frost/Nixon are surely what prompted a theatrical release in Australia, but it becomes quickly obvious that television was the correct domain for this rather flat retelling of the “special relationship” between US President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair between the years of 1993 to 2001.

Read the rest at Trespass Mag

I go on to discuss how Michael Sheen needs to give up this whole Tony Blair thing and how Hope Davis is the best thing about the movie. I don't want to give Peter Morgan any ideas though because haven't we all had enough of this very polite sub-sub-sub genre of political biopics written by Peter Morgan? I think so!

Sunday, August 2, 2009

MIFF 2009 Review: Outrage

Outrage
Dir. Kirby Dick
Year: 2009
Aus Rating: N/A
Running Time: 90mins

I imagine that one's enjoyment of and reaction to Kirby Dick's latest exposé documentary Outrage will depend almost in relation to one's beliefs about the issues it raises. The issues in this case are the outing of American politicians who have emphatically voted against gay rights issues, equality measures, AIDS funding and those who have actively tried to hide their sexuality in the closet as a means of furthering their career.

Understandably, there are many who disagree with Outrage on a moral level. They can be gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, male or female, because it is a very prickly issue, but one that I, personally, felt should be exposed. Many of the stories held within Kirby Dick's film are from a time when the Internet allowed many of these men to hide their sexualities and their exploits. One such case involves Terry Dolan, a prominent figure in the ushering in of the conservative era thanks to his role in the National Conservative Political Action Committee and how he was known amongst the gay community as a frequenter of the Flamingo gay club in New York City. At the time they would have gone undisclosed in a heavily conservative news and political system and for it amazed this viewer that stories such as these stretch back a long way.


Figures such as Dolan, since deceased from AIDS-related illness, are perhaps easy targets and it is there that Outrage will leave a bad taste in some audience members' mouths. I, however, thought it apt and definitely an important topic in regards to the hypocrisy of these people. The case that opens the film, and the case that has the best chance of being of knowledge to viewers, is that of Larry Craig is a thrilling tale and one that was still under-reported by those whose investment in gay rights issues is nil.

Dick's film isn't the stiff and severe movie you might be thinking it is. There is some wicked humour within, frequently thrown in due to the intelligent and witty talking heads such as Rodger McFarlane, and the sly nods to bad Freudian slips from the outed politicians. "Thanks for coming out today" says Larry Craig at a news conference. If only, right? And then just moments later it is tugging at the heartstrings as the cases of hate crimes are raised including Lawrence King, the 15-year-old who was shot dead by a classmate, and even moments of sadness such as the case of Dina McGreevey, the wife of a gay politician who came out after years of marriage. Kirby Dick manages to balance these out nicely and by films end I could have kept watching for another hour.


As someone who thinks the issues at hand are worth putting out in the open I appreciated the film. As a gay man whose rights are continuously thrown aside and ignored I found no real problem in outing the same people who made it their mission to stifle my rights. The film stresses that it is not interested in "outing" closeted gay politicians who have not gone out of their way to destroy the rights of other gay people. In that it exposes hypocrisy that we all know is there, but that others don't want to admit exists. If they did that it would mean there are actual gay people with prominent power and that they couldn't pretend homosexuals only exist on the fringes. And, for that, I think the film should have been been and should be seen. B+