Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 February 2012

There are three serious contenders for best actress at the upcoming Academy Awards – Viola Davis in The Help (who won the Screen Actors Guild Award), Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady (who won the Golden Globe – Drama) and Michelle Williams in My Week With Marilyn (who won the Golden Globe – Comedy).

The question I’d like to throw out there is… what makes a good performance?  How would you differentiate between these three wonderful actresses?  There are varying schools of thought and I’m not here to proclaim that there’s a right answer.  Such is the nature of any award that involves a degree of subjectivity.

If I were a voting member of the Academy however, I’d be putting a tick next to the name of Viola Davis.  It’s not that I dislike Meryl Streep and Michelle Williams.  I think they’re both very talented.  Michelle Williams’ performance in Take This Waltz, my favourite film from last year’s Toronto Film Festival, is incredible.  I can’t wait for it to be widely released later this year.

My problem with Streep and Williams is that they’ve been nominated in films that I don’t really care for.  Looking at Streep in The Iron Lady, I admit that she’s done a terrific job looking and sounding like the real Margaret Thatcher.  However, the film’s screenplay holds her back.  It doesn’t dig deep enough into her character and the film, as a whole, left me with no new perspective on one of the most intriguing leaders of the 20^th Century.

I left the theatre with similar thoughts after seeing My Week With Marilyn.  The story is set in 1956 and centres on a 23-year-old named Colin (Redmayne) who is looking to break into the film industry.  After pulling a few family strings, he’s landed the job as the third assistant director on a new movie titled The Prince And The Showgirl.  It’s to be directed by Laurence Olivier (Branagh) and will feature one of the world’s biggest stars, Marilyn Monroe (Williams).

From the moment she became involved in the project, Marilyn was “hard work”.  She’d always arrive late to the set.  She’d often forget her lines.  She’s regularly question the director about the script.  Why was she like this though?  Was she a prima-donna who loves the power and the attention?  Or was she a vulnerable, insecure woman who was often misunderstood?

The naïve Colin was the only person who seemed to be able to get close enough to find the answers.  Marilyn developed a soft spot for the young lad and the two started spending time together off set.  Everyone warned Colin about the dangers of getting close to this married starlet but it’s pretty hard to say “no” to Miss Monroe.

The subject matter is interesting but I was disappointed with its delivery.  The screenplay is repetitious.  I tweeted to a friend afterwards – “Marilyn turns up late to the set 10 times, people warn young kid about Marilyn 20 times. The end.”  I’m being a little simplistic but it gets the message across.

Also working against the film is that fact that Colin is a dull character.  We watch him learn about movie-making and see him seduce a young costume assistant (Watson).  For what purpose?  Marilyn is clearly the most fascinating person in this story so why not tell it from her perspective?  I wanted to know more about her… and not Colin!

I’ll replicate my comments above and say that, like Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady, Michelle Williams has done a great job capturing the exterior of her character… but failed to provide much insight on her interior.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2012

Put your hands up if you know the Olsen twins.  I’m referring to Mary-Kate and Ashley, the two actresses who began their career on the television series Full House.  They were only 9 months old when they first appeared on the show.

What I didn’t realise until a few months ago is that they have a younger sister – Elizabeth Olsen.  Her career has taken a “little longer” to get started but she has the potential to pass both of her older siblings in terms of “star power”.  Martha Marcy May Marlene is her first major film and her powerful performance has grabbed the attention of critics around the world.  We’re going to see a lot more from this talented 22-year-old year in the next few years.

Olsen plays the same character throughout the film but it focuses on two different points of her life.  Firstly, we see her as Marcy May, a young woman who has run away from home and become part of a small cult.  She thinks these people are her friends.  Why else would they have welcomed her into their home?

The reality is that they prey on her vulnerability.  She is isolated, brainwashed and sexually abused by the cult’s leader (Hawkes).  This continues for a lengthy period of time and in the process, Marcy May loses her identity.  She no longer knows the difference between “right” and “wrong”.  She cannot see past the cult’s destructive nature.  She just thinks this is how life is meant to be.

The second part of this story is set two years into the future.  This woman has found a way out of the cult and now goes by her original name, Martha.  She has been reunited with her older sister, Lucy (Paulson), and is now living with Lucy and her husband, Ted (Dancy), in a beautiful river-front home.

Things aren’t much rosier however.  Her time inside the cult has left Martha as a broken woman.  She refuses to discuss her past and her sister cannot understand her strange behaviour.  There’s one scene where Martha innocuously climbs into bed with Lucy and Ted whilst they’re having sex.  There’s another where she strips naked in front of them.  The fact that she doesn’t see the error of her ways highlights Martha’s complete detachment from reality.

First time writer-director Sean Durkin has chosen to tell this tale in a fragmented manner.  We cross back and forth between Marcy May in the cult and Martha living with her sister.  It’s an effective technique and helps the audience understand this woman’s fractured mindset.  You’ll also get a clear sense of the helplessness felt by Lucy.  She isn’t privy to the background information (as we are) and she doesn’t know how to get her younger sister to open up about her problems.

It may be a challenging subject matter for some filmgoers but Martha Marcy May Marlene is an affecting character study.  Looking deep into the psyche of this troubled individual, Durkin isn’t offering any easy answers… and nor should he be.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 February 2012

Ryan Reynolds works for the CIA and is a good guy.  Denzel Washington used to work for the CIA and is the bad guy.  This is because he’s selling top secret government intelligence to other bad guys.  Denzel doesn’t see himself as a bad guy however.  He thinks he’s the good guy and that what he’s doing is justified.

Denzel is captured and is being interrogated at a safe house in South Africa by other CIA good guys.  Unfortunately, the building is attacked by a group of mysterious bad guys who have a lot of guns and bombs and stuff.  Everyone is killed with the exception of Ryan and Denzel.  They flee the scene and Ryan is given orders by the good guys back in the United States to get Denzel to a “safer” safe house.

But are the folk back in the U.S. all good guys?  It doesn’t seem that way.  How else would the bad guys have known about the safe house and Denzel’s location there?  It appears someone is leaking information.  This would certainly make them a bad guy.  Perhaps even a bad girl?  I shouldn’t be sexist because that would certainly make me a bad guy.  We can’t have that.

So who are the good “people” and who are the bad “people”?  That’s pretty much what this action-thriller boils down to.  The story fits together far too neatly but I admit that it held my attention and I was curious to see the story would unfold.

On the plus side, Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds are both great.  I’d expect nothing less from Mr Washington (given the two Oscars he has sitting on his mantelpiece at home) but Mr Reynolds caught me off guard.  I liked him a lot.  His character is completely out of his element (at least at the start) and endures a few savage beatings... all designed so that you’ll be rooting for him to finish on top.

The film’s action sequences are also very good.  The introduction is a touch slow but the film shifts gear with a crazy car chase sequences through the streets of Cape Town.  The editing is precise and you won’t be able to hear the munching of popcorn over the deafening sound effects.  It’ll get the blood pumping.

On the negative side, the film was too serious for my liking.  It’s an insane, relatively predictable storyline and you’d think they’d be able to weave more humour into the mix.  At the packed preview screening I attended, there were only a couple of scenes that generated a slight chuckle.  Perhaps my expectations were misaligned with those of the filmmakers.

As I alluded to above, the plot could have also used some work.  Denzel and Ryan are forever chasing each other around town – first one gets the upper hand and then the momentum switches.  It drags on for too long and you’ll be anxious to get to the finale where everyone’s true colours are revealed.  Whilst I won’t give anything away, I can’t say I was too surprised by the ending.

I wouldn’t describe it as memorable piece of cinema but if you’re a fan of these two actors or you enjoy a half-decent action film, it’s worth the price of admission.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2012

I have a few friends who often complain about foreign films.  They hate going to a cinema and having to spend two hours reading words on a screen.  I think I’ve found the answer to their problems.  The Artist may be a French film but they won’t have to worry about subtitles.  Why?  Well, because it’s a black & white silent film with no dialogue whatsoever.

I say that somewhat jokingly because the idea of such a film may be more of a turn off.  It’ll be interesting to see how The Artist fares at the box-office.  It’s been touted as the best picture frontrunner for the upcoming Academy Awards but how easy will it be to get bums on seats?

The movie has been praised by critics since it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival last May.  The powerful Weinstein Company immediately saw its potential and bought it for distribution in the United States and United Kingdom.  They sat on it for a few months, slipped it into a few other film festivals, and waited for the positive word-out-mouth to spread.  Now, just weeks from the Oscars ceremony, it’s being released widely across the globe to cash in on the free awards season publicity.

I was lucky enough to see the movie last September at the Toronto Film Festival.  In my notebook I wrote that it contained “so much creativity”.  That’s easily its strongest attribute.  The idea itself is ingenious – a black & white silent film about black & white silent filmmaking.  This overlap helps create much of the film’s comedy.  It reminded me a little of the underrated Pleasantville, released back in 1998.

The story begins in 1927 where George Valentin (Dujardin) is one of the biggest silent movie stars in the business.  Audiences have fallen in love with his infectious smile and his over-exuberant facial expressions.  It seems everyone’s a fan… the biggest being George himself.  There’s an amusing moment where he looks at a painting of himself on the wall and nods his head with approval.  He’s a happy guy who is revelling in his celebrity status.

His happy-go-lucky lifestyle is about to change however with the arrival of “talkies”.  George is a traditionalist and refuses to adapt to this new era of filmmaking.  He persists with his silent films and soon falls out of favour with the public.  People no longer want to sit in soundless theatres.  People no longer want to watch George Valentin.

Can he find a way to reinvigorate himself?  The answer lies in a beautiful movie starlet named Peppy Miller (Bejo).  Several years ago, it was George who was centre stage and it was Peppy who was looking for her big break into the industry.  The roles have now been reversed.  Peppy has always had a soft-spot for George and she’s doing everything she can to get him back on the big screen.

The first half of The Artist is amazing.  There is so much wit and you’re likely to be as smiling as much as George Valentin.  There’s a dream sequence (which I won’t spoil) that left critics laughing hysterically at the Toronto press screening.  It actually took me a few seconds to work out what they were all laughing about.  It’s beautifully done.

My only criticism is that the comedic elements work better than the dramatic elements.  The film’s pace slows in the second half and we get bogged down in repetitive melodrama.  We can see George’s career going down the tubes but why did it need to drag on for so long?

It left me with thinking that this story should have been stronger.  I realise being a silent black & white film is essential to the film’s charm but if you were to tell the same tale in colour and with dialogue, would people find it all that interesting?  I’m not convinced.

Whilst I don’t think it deserves the Oscar for best picture, The Artist is still a great film.  Frenchman Jean Dujardin and the Argentinean-born Bérénice Bejo are delightful in the leading roles.  Given the many award nominations he has already received, Dujardin has been learning English to help with his acceptance speeches.  It’s nice to see.  With some great facial expressions of his own, John Goodman is also terrific as a studio boss.

We all know the saying that a picture paints a thousands words.  The Artist has taken that concept and put it into cinematic form.  It’s funny, it’s bold and it’s creative.  Do see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 February 2012

Shame opens with a beautiful scene.  A man is travelling on a New York City subway train and his eyes are glued to a young blonde woman sitting diagonally opposite.  Initially flattered by the attention, the woman quickly starts to feel uncomfortable.  He hasn’t said a word but his confident, unflinching stare has made his intentions very clear.  She not-so-subtly flashes her wedding ring and then makes a hasty exit from the train.

The man’s name is Brandon Sullivan (Fassbender) and he is one of the most interesting characters that we have seen on screen over the past year.  He lives alone in a clean, trendy apartment with a great view.  He has a nicely-paying job that comes with a sleek office.  He dresses immaculately and looks like a man who is cool, calm and collected.

To use a popular idiom - appearances can be deceiving.  He may have everyone else fooled but deep down, Brandon Sullivan knows he is not in control.  He is a sex addict.  It’s what he thinks about all day long.  He regularly hires prostitutes, he downloads huge amounts of porn and he even masturbates in the toilet cubicles at work.

When I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival last September, writer-director Steve McQueen (Hunger) and star Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) touched on the subject matter in the post film Q&A session.  There are so many “addictions” that are widely acknowledged such as alcohol, drugs and gambling.  The symptoms are easy to spot and various services are available to help people deal with their problems.

That’s not the case with sex addiction.  It’s largely kept from public view and it’s a key reason why McQueen wanted to make the film.  He’s not trying to score political points or offer any easy solutions.  He just wants to put the issue “out there” and get people talking.  I saw this film for a second time last week and had a few lengthy conversations with friends in the cinema foyer afterwards.  Any movie that can generate such discussion has my admiration.

The exploration of sex addiction is only part of the story however.  Equally riveting is the psychological analysis of its leading character.  Every scene of the film is spent focused on Brandon and over the course of two hours, we try to break through his façade and understand what drives his behaviour.

At the heart of Brandon’s troubles is a deep-seated fear of intimacy.  He’s a 30-something year old guy but he’s never had a relationship that has lasted more than 4 months.  It’s a fact he freely confesses while on a date with a colleague from work (a great segment in the film).

The only person who can get past Brandon’s steely exterior is his younger sister, Sissy (Mulligan), who is staying with him for a few days while visiting New York City.  These two characters share a dark history that isn’t specifically detailed.  It’s as if McQueen wants us to draw our own conclusions.  Her presence in his apartment and her constant probing into his lifestyle is of great discomfort to Brandon.  He tries to push Sissy away but she won’t budge.

Without a doubt, Shame is one of the best films of the year.  The story is fascinating in itself but it’s Steve McQueen’s careful direction that gives it a seductive, hypnotic edge.  He wants us to know what it’s like to be Brandon Sullivan and there’s very little respite.  The lack of editing, curious camera angles and odd choice of music will leave many feeling uncomfortable.

The terrific performances must also be acknowledged.  The tortured look in Michael Fassbender’s eyes says more than any dialogue could.  Carey Mulligan (An Education) floors the audience with a heartfelt rendition of Liza Minnelli’s New York New York in a hotel bar.  It’s disappointing that both were overlooked in the recent Academy Award nominations.

As amazing as this movie is, I don’t think you can ever say that you “enjoyed” it.  Rather, it’s an intense film-going experience that will leave a lasting impression.

The Shame Q&A at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival with director Steve McQueen & star Michael Fassbender.

The huge crowd at the Princess Of Wales Theatre at TIFF for the North American premiere of Shame.