Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2016

A lot has been said and written about the recent Federal election here in Australia and the Presidential election in the United States.  Many issues have been discussed and, judging by the number of posts on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, there are a seemingly endless number of viewpoints.  It’s often hard to dig through the detail and form an opinion of your own.  Adding to the complexity are lies that are told, facts that are concealed, and data that is poorly analysed.

I, Daniel Blake takes a complex issue and breaks it down into its simplest form – by putting you in someone else’s shoes and asking you to think about it.  The film begins by introducing us to 59-year-old Daniel Blake (Johns), a widower with no children who lives in a small apartment in Newcastle (the one in England).  He has spent close to 40 years working as a carpenter but recently suffered a heart attack on the job.  Doctors and specialists have provided him with medication and ordered him to rest for several months before returning to work.

The film’s opening scene has Daniel interacting with a contracted “health care professional” at the British welfare office.  They are running through a formal checklist of questions to determine if he is eligible to receive welfare payments from the government.  A few days later, a letter arrives in the mail with a negative response.  They have ignored the doctor’s assessment and declared him fit for work.  He tries to contact the welfare office’s help line but after waiting two hours to speak with someone, that too amounts to nought.

This is a sad tale about a man who needs help but lives in a world where support is not forthcoming.  Daniel is a self-described “dog with a bone” who refuses to accept defeat but he’s stuck in an endless loop of beurocracy and “red tape”.  He can’t appeal until he receives a phone call from the “Decision Maker”.  He can’t get unemployment benefits in the interim until he completes an online form (he doesn’t know how to use a computer) and agree to conditions he cannot meet given his health issues.

While waiting at the welfare office, he befriends Katie (Squires), a single mother in an even worse financial situation.  Her case officer is threatening to withhold her unemployment benefits because she did not arrive on time for her appointment.  There was a valid reason for her lateness but it counts for nothing – the rules are the rules.  Katie is desperate to work but cannot find a job.  She forgoes dinner some nights because she can only afford enough food to feed her two young children.

Some might describe this as the comedy of the year.  There were plenty of laughs at the preview screening I attended.  Let’s be honest though – there shouldn’t be any humour in this situation but it’s hard to react differently given its sheer absurdity.  Daniel and Katie aren’t treated like people.  They are numbers is a system.  When a welfare officer considers going outside the rules and helping Daniel, she is immediately shut down by her superior.  You have to ask yourself the question – is this really what we want as society?

Directed by 80-year-old Ken Loach (The Wind That Shakes the Barley), I, Daniel Blake took home one of cinema’s most coveted prizes – the Palm D’or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival.  It’s easy to see why the jury, headed by Australian George Miller, was moved by this great piece of cinema.  The leading performances from Dave Johns and Hayley Squires are outstanding.  They’ve created two ordinary, every-day characters that are well-intentioned and are passionately trying to make ends meet.  A lot of people will be able to relate.

Cinema has the power to open our eyes to the world’s issues and offer a path forward if we’re willing to take it.  I, Daniel Blake is a great example and should not be missed.

You can read my chat with star Dave Johns by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2016

Sitting in the director’s chair for the first time in a decade, Mel Gibson’s latest tells the real life story of Desmond T. Doss (Garfield) – a United States solider who fought against the Japanese during the Battle of Okinawa in May 1945.  For his “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action above and beyond the call of duty”, Doss was awarded the Medal of Honour by President Harry S. Truman.

What distinguishes this film from other World War II movies is the unusual set of eyes through which it has been told.  Doss was a “conscientious objector”.  Born and raised as a Seventh-day Adventist, he refused to kill another individual and refused to carry a weapon of any kind.  You might ask your question – why did he voluntarily enlist for the army?  His intention was to become a medic that would be “saving people rather than killing them.” 

This school of thought didn’t sit well with his fellow soldiers who saw him as a coward and a major liability.  There’s a scene where an army sergeant (Vaughn) warns the others not to look to Doss to save them because “he’ll be too busy wrestling his conscience.”  What’s the point of going into battle against the well-armed Japanese if the solider standing beside you doesn’t even know how to hold a gun?

It seemed that everyone wanted Doss to quit.  He was criticised by his parents (Weaving, Griffiths) who didn’t want to lose another son to the war.  He was beaten by other soldiers until bruised and bleeding.  He was imprisoned by Captain Glover (Worthington) for not completing training and following orders.  He even missed his own wedding because of his steadfast refusal to quit the army.

The early stages of Hacksaw Ridge feel a little drawn out.  I gained a quick understanding of the character and was ready for the narrative to progress.  The screenplay delves into Doss’s past and analyses the relationship he had with his abusive father (Weaving).  His mother feebly attempts to justify her husband’s actions by saying “he don’t hate us, he just hates himself sometimes.”

The film makes its impact in the second half when Doss is sent to the frontline and the troops try to wrestle control of Hacksaw Ridge from the Japanese.  It’s a bloody, powerful sequence that is both tragic and uplifting.  Andrew Garfield speaks with a slow drawl and comes across as a touch dopey but it’s a good fit for the character.  He is a man driven by his beliefs rather than common sense.

The nominations for the 2016 AACTA Awards were unveiled last month (the Australian equivalent of the Oscars) and leading the pack with 13 nominations was Hacksaw Ridge, the latest effort from director Mel Gibson (Braveheart).  It’s an announcement that couldn’t be better timed given its release in Australian cinemas this week.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2016

When it comes to aliens and science fiction, one of my all-time favourite movies is Contact, the 1997 release starring Jodie Foster and directed by Robert Zemeckis.  Instead of portraying a full-blown alien attack and relying on huge action sequences (like Independence Day), it was a more dramatic film that looked at what would happen if a peaceful alien race was looking to reach out to humans and make “first contact”.

Arrival, directed by Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners, Sicario), has been made from the same mould.  It begins with a world changing event.  12 alien vessels have descended upon Earth and are hovering above different parts of the planet.  There doesn’t appear to be any pattern to their locations but one has parked itself in a grassy, isolated field in Montana.

It’s one of those moments where time seems to stop and the world comes to a standstill.  We see footage from a university where a normally packed lecture theatre is almost empty.  Everyone else is huddled outside watching the news on their phones and television screens.  The days that follow become more and more troubling.  Citizens panic, grocery stores are looted, gas stations run out of petrol, and the government is forced to impose a night time curfew.  It’s a tense time.

Based on the short story by Ted Chiang, Arrival is told from the perspective of Dr Louise Banks (Adams), a renowned academic who lectures on language and linguistics.  Having previously performed translation work for the U.S. military, she is called in by Colonel Weber (Whitaker) to help make contact with the alien lifeforms.

It’s a situation that requires Louise to take more than a few deep breaths.  She is taken aboard the spacecraft where she comes face-to-face with the alien creatures.  The only thing separating them is a thick sheet of glass.  It’s clear they want to communicate but Louise needs to work out how.  Is it best to attack the problem by speaking or by using words and visual imagery?  Also helping is a scientist (Renner) who specialises in mathematics.

Action junkies may be disappointed but this is an interesting exploration of how humans would react if presented with a similar real life situation.  If a more advanced alien race did visit Earth, how much could we learn from them and how big an impact would it have on our own existence?  Would it alter science in a radical way?  What would religious leaders have to say?

The film also delves into the darker elements of human nature.  It taps into the theme that the biggest danger to our planet is not aliens but rather, it is us.  We see governments around the world divided on how to approach the situation.  Are the aliens truly friendly and how much should be shared with them?  Further, how much should be revealed to the nervous public who are thirsty for information?  As rumours spread and the conspiracy theorists weigh in, it all becomes harder and harder for the U.S. government to control.

I love the concept of this movie but it’s a little clunky in how it gets its message across.  It’s trying to pack a lot inside of two hours and parts are rushed.  The best example is the deteriorating relationship between some countries as the days and weeks drag on.  We know there’s tension but we hardly see any interaction between their representatives.  Would a country actually be serious enough to sever all forms of communication with others? 

Perhaps the reason this area doesn’t get the focus it deserves is because this is a film with Louise at the centre.  It’s about the effect the aliens have on her and how she has a role to play in helping advance humanity.  That becomes apparent during the later scenes and Amy Adams deserves credit for another emotive performance.

Complete with another blaring film score from Jóhann Jóhannsson (who worked with Villeneuve on Sicario), Arrival is going to divide audiences.  Don’t go in thinking you can sit back, relax, and enjoy some action-heavy entertainment.  Your mind will be put to work. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 November 2016

I confess to being a little more interested than the average moviegoer when it comes to The Accountant.  It’s what I do as a day job as film criticism doesn’t quite pay the bills.  The film opens with the traditional view of what accountants do.  Christian Wolff (Affleck) operates out of a small, gloomy office and is helping an elderly couple with their annual tax return.  They’re worried about a hefty tax bill but Wolff is bending the rules and strongly suggesting they throw in a few creative deductions.

Don’t fret.  This isn’t a two hour movie about capital gains tax and negative gearing.  Writer Bill Dubuque (The Judge) puts forward an intriguing scenario.  We know there are horrible people in the world who are involved in terrorism, bribery, trafficking and espionage.  Who maintains their financial records though?  It makes sense that even bad guys need a Chartered Accountant to keep tabs on their money.

That’s where Christian Wolff makes most of his fees – by helping out large criminal families and organisations.  He maintains the lowest profile possible but Wolff’s actions have finally caught the attention of Raymond King (Simmons), the Financial Crimes Director for the Treasury Department.  He has assigned one of his senior analysts (Addai-Robinson) the difficult task of locating Wolff and compiling enough evidence to put him behind bars.

Adding another layer to the narrative is the fact that Wolff suffers from severe autism.  We are shown footage of him as a child where he hates bright lights and hates being touched by others.  He completes a complicated jigsaw puzzle but then becomes distressed when one piece is missing from the box.  This helps us understand the Wolff we see today.  He expresses no emotions, he struggles with human interaction, and he cannot stop once he’s started a particular task.

To borrow the words from the Home Shopping Network – “but wait, there’s more!”  The Accountant seems to have more storylines than an entire series of Game of Thrones.  Wolff is engaged by a person on the phone with a muffled voice (subplot #1) to perform a forensic accounting assignment for a large robotics company (subplot #2) where he meets a young accountant (Kendrick) looking to know more about him (subplot #3) while being pursued by hired goons (subplot #4) and haunted by memories of his father (subplot #5).

I like being challenged as a filmgoer but there’s too much going on here.  The finale includes a lengthy monologue from J.K. Simmons that is only necessary because of the many plot gaps needing to be filled.  Without giving away some of the key plot twists, there are parts to the story that lack credibility and a scene in a well-armed house towards the end is a good example.

The film’s most positive quality is its exploration of autism.  It’s a condition we don’t see often on the big screen – especially in a big budget action-thriller.  For those not familiar, it will provide insight into those dealing with the lifelong development condition and the effect on those around them.  For those already familiar, it provides confirmation that those diagnosed with autism can contribute to society in the same way as everyone else.

Directed by Gavin O’Connor (Warrior), The Accountant bites off more than it can chew but at least it’s adding a bit of excitement to the accounting profession!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 November 2016

“Sometimes there’s so much beauty in the world, I feel like I can’t take it, and my heart is going to cave in.”  It’s an iconic quote from Sam Mendes’ Oscar winning American Beauty but it could equally apply to the films of Tom Ford.  This is only the second release from the fashion designer turned movie director (following 2009’s A Single Man) but he’s already developed a unique cinematic fingerprint.  From the cinematography to the costume design to the music score… Ford finds a way to make you pay attention and soak it all in.

As his sophomore film, Nocturnal Animals taps into a common theme – the struggle to escape one’s past.  Ford gets his message through by skilfully weaving three timelines together.  The story begins in the current day and is centred on 40-something-year-old Susan Morrow (Adams).  At a first glance, Susan epitomises the American dream.  She is married to a successful businessman (Hammer), she lives in a stunning home in Los Angeles, and she runs an highly regarded art gallery.

Susan is quick to acknowledge the success in her life but she doesn’t come across a bubbly, chirpy, content individual.  She confides in a close friend that she feels “ungrateful not to be happy.”  She bored at work and she’s grown increasingly distant from her workaholic husband.  It’s clear that whatever she wants out of life, she’s not getting it.

Her world gets an unexpected jolt when she receives a delivery in the mail from her ex-husband, Edward (Gyllenhaal).  The pair got married back when they were college students but divorced not long after and haven’t spoken in 19 years.  Edward had always wanted to be a writer and the package contains a completed manuscript which, as per the inscription on the front page, is dedicated to Susan.  Battling a mix of emotions, intrigue comes through strongest and so she sits down to read Edward’s ‘Nocturnal Animals’.

It’s at this point where the narrative fractures into its three parts.  The words on the page come to life and we are shown a visual representation of Edward’s fictitious novel through Susan’s eyes.  It’s the tale of man (also played by Gyllenhaal) consumed by revenge.  He seeks a group of thugs (led by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) who abducted his wife (Fisher) and daughter while travelling on an isolated road in Texas.  He is assisted by a local police detective (Shannon) who promises to “look into things around here”.

As we follow the novel and Susan’s reaction to it, the final timeline takes shape – that of the relationship between Susan and Edward two decades earlier.  To understand why Edward wrote the novel, you have to understand their past.  Without giving too much away, it’s this important piece that connects the other two narratives and leads to the film’s powerful conclusion (and also one of the year’s best).

Just as he did in A Single Man, Tom Ford has extracted quality performances from his high profile cast.  Amy Adams is superb as the film’s troubled protagonist and Jake Gyllenhaal distinguishes himself by playing two subtly different roles.  Michael Shannon has been tipped as an award season contender and it’s easy to see why with his portrayal as the scraggly police detective with a steely determination that burns within.

Evidenced by its eye-opening opening title sequence, Nocturnal Animals is also to be admired for its colours, lighting and imagery.  Cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (Atonement) provides a dark, colourless perspective of Los Angeles and a contrasting view of the Texas deserts.  Having also worked with Ford on A Single Man, composer Abel Korzeniowski has crafted another bold film score and editor Joan Sobel has laced the overlapping storylines together with precision.

Most of us would struggle to justify the high cost of a Tom Ford suit but when it comes to the ticket price of a Tom Ford movie, I can’t recommend the later more strongly enough.