Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2020

In a recent interview, 36-year-old director Robert Eggers (The Witch) said he wanted to make a movie that was “obscure” and “ambiguous” and “weird”.  The Lighthouse is just that.  The screenplay, which he co-wrote with his brother, was always going to be set around a lighthouse but they couldn’t land on the right narrative.  It was originally a fictional ghost story but then it morphed into a loose adaptation of a true story that took place at the Smalls Lighthouse off the coast of Wales in the early 19^th Century.

It’s more common in the theatre world but The Lighthouse is a rare cinematic two-hander in the sense that there are only two characters.  A pair of lighthouse keepers, referred to as “wickies”, have been posted on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.  It was originally a four week assignation but it drags into months due to a severe, prolonged storm that prevents a fresh crew from reaching the island.

The early scenes focus on the power dynamics between the two.  Wake (Dafoe) is the experienced veteran who likes to assert his authority while Winslow (Pattinson) is the relative newcomer looking to make some money and stay out of trouble.  The differences in their daily tasks serve as the perfect metaphor for their place in the island’s social hierarchy.  The younger Winslow is forced to get on his knees and scrub the floor in their small lodgings (the bottom) while the older Wake gets the easier job of tending to the lighthouse’s bright, beautiful light (the top).

If you think about being marooned for months on a tiny island with someone you don’t like… well... it’s inevitable that tension will arise.  Wake shows almost no mercy and, as a hard-ass boss, he’s intent on pushing Winslow’s buttons until he reaches a breaking point.  It seems the only time the pair get along and engage in meaningful conversation is when they’re drunk (thanks to the help of their vast vodka supplies).

The further the film goes, the stranger it gets.  Winslow experiences a series of hallucinations and reaches a point where he struggles to separate reality from fiction.  What is clear is that their isolation, both physically and mentally, is taking a heavy toll.  Eggers has shot in the entire film is black and white on 35mm film using the narrower 1.19:1 ratio to help infuse that same uncomfortable, claustrophobic feel on the audience.  You’d think it was shot in the 1930s given the grainy look and it’s no surprise that cinematographer Jarin Blaschke earned his first Academy Award nomination for his impressive work.

This will be a tough watch for some filmgoers.  The mumbling Willem Dafoe is borderline incoherent at times and, whilst he provides laughs (a nice touch) with his flatulence and his insults, there are scenes where you’re not sure what to think.  The ending might also leave a few scratching their heads.  That said, from its distinctive look to Willem Dafoe getting a mouthful of dirt, this is one of the more memorable films of the year.  Enter the cinema with an open mind.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 January 2020

From The Thin Blue Line (1988) to In the Name of the Father (1993) to The Central Park Five (2012).  All of these films recount the true story of individuals who, on the basis of flawed evidence, were incarcerated for years (often decades) for crimes they did not commit.  How can you not be affected when thinking about the sense of helplessness they endured and the emotional toll on their families?  It’s even sadder when thinking about others in the same position who died in prison and never saw justice served.

Just Mercy taps into the same theme and, drawing from his own autobiography, tells the story of African American lawyer Bryan Stevenson (played in the film by Michael B. Jordan).  Stevenson graduated from Harvard University in 1985 and within a few years, he’d founded the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) in Alabama with the help of Federal government funding.  Its goal was to provide legal representation to prisoners on death row and to also help those who had been denied a fair trial.

Stevenson and his dedicated, hard-working staff have helped hundreds of people over the past three decades but the film focuses on one in particular, Walter McMillian (Foxx), who was sentenced to death in 1988 for the murder of an 18-year-old woman.  There was a mountain of evidence that showed McMillian was elsewhere at the time of the murder but despite this, the jury convicted him based on the lone testimony of a criminal (Nelson) who had ulterior motives.

As you can imagine, this is very much a David v Goliath type story.  Stevenson had very few resources at this disposal and was up against the might of the Alabama authorities who did not want to admit they had convicted an innocent man.  This is evident in an early scene where Stevenson meets the new District Attorney (Spall) and is warned that “if you go digging in those wounds, you’re going to make a lot of people unhappy.”

Director Destin Daniel Cretton (Short Term 12), who also co-wrote the screenplay with friend Andrew Lanham, has extracted great performances from his cast.  Michael B. Jordan (Creed) is excellent as the level-headed, unrelenting Stevenson who seldom loses his composure.  Jamie Foxx (Ray) earned a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination for his performance as the exasperated McMillian.  You can jump on YouTube to watch a 60 Minutes story from 1992 that features the key players and you’ll be impressed by how the whole cast, including supporting actors like Tim Blake Nelson and Rafe Spall, mirror the personalities of their real-life counterparts.

The point of a movie like Just Mercy is reflection.  It’s easy to say “oh, that happened 30 years ago” but the Equal Justice Initiative, which now employs over 150 people, is as important as ever in the battle to address racial injustice, flawed judicial systems, and excessive punishment.  An important film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2020

It’s becoming harder and harder to rely on positive word of mouth.  We now live in an era where films need to be heavily advertised and promoted in the lead up to their release to have any chance of financial success.  Actors charm audiences on late night talk shows, directors give lengthy interviews to writers, talent travel across the globe for red carpet premieres, and distributors erect posters and billboards wherever they can.

As polarising as his films can be, there’s something refreshing and intriguing about director Terrence Malick.  This is a guy who has won the Palm d’or at Cannes, the Golden Bear in Berlin, and twice been nominated for best director at the Academy Awards.  The list of actors he’s worked with over the past decade includes Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Ryan Gosling and Michael Fassbender.  Not a bad list, right?

And yet… despite his output and his critical success… Terrence Malick is a very private man who is seldom seen in public.  He’s popped up at a small number of Q&As in recent years (as rare as a sighting of Big Foot) but he hasn’t given a face-to-face interview with a journalist in more than 40 years.  He doesn’t attend award ceremonies and he seldom appears at gala premieres (and even then he’s hiding up the back and doesn’t get on stage).  Malick is an “artist” in the sense that he puts his films into the public domain and then leaves it up to the viewer to reflect and interpret.  If you’re unsure about a particular element, don’t expect to find an explanation from him online.

While I was frustrated by his last two outings (Knight of Cups and Song to Song), A Hidden Life marks a return to the Terrence Malick that I first admired on seeing The Thin Red Line in 1998.  It comes with his trademarks – from stunning cinematography to whispering narrators.  As he’s done in the past, Malick wants to show us how beautiful and simple the world is… but then contrast that with the complexity of humanity and the issues that we create for ourselves.

The key difference this time around is that A Hidden Life has much more to offer in terms of coherent narrative.  It’s based on the true story of an Austrian farmer, Franz Jägerstätter (Diehl), who was conscripted to fight with the German Nazis during World War II.  Franz refused to pledge his allegiance to Adolf Hitler and for that, he and his family were persecuted.  To borrow the words of the town’s mayor – “you are worse than the enemy because you are a traitor.”

At its heart, this is a tale about the courage required to stand up for something when no one else agrees with you.  We see the toll this takes on his wife (Pachner) who laments “you can’t change the world… the world is stronger.”  The movie is also informative in that it looks at the conflicted role of the Catholic Church during World War II and how priests were under severe pressure from Nazis officials to “tow the party line”.  A special screening of the film was held last month at the Vatican Film Library given its themes and spiritual undertones.

The cinematography of Jörg Widmer is stunning and the violin-laden music score from composer James Newton Howard (Michael Clayton) is powerful.  Perhaps it could have used a slight trim considering the 174-minute run time (at least it’s shorter than The Irishman) but A Hidden Life is a commanding piece of cinema that lingers long after you’ve left the theatre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2020

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood will be a slightly tougher sell in Australia compared to the United States as many here will not be familiar with its real life hero, Fred Rogers.  For those who’ve never heard the name, Rogers hosted a popular live-action children’s show that first aired in 1968 and continued through to his retirement in 2001.  In 2002, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush for “his service to the nation and dedication to the education of children.”  He was just the 5^th television personality in history to achieve the honour.

Tom Hanks has mastered many acting assignments but even he was “terrified” by this role given Fred Rogers had such a public profile.  How do you recreate someone who was so loved and adored without it coming across as gimmicky imitation?  The answer to that question was time and research.  Hanks admitted to watching “about 8 million hours” of Mister Rogers programs and he travelled to Pittsburgh to spend time with Fred’s wife, Joanne (noting that Fred passed away in 2003).  She was even kind enough to let Hanks wear some of her husband’s old ties in the movie.

Kudos to director Marielle Heller (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) in casting Hanks because his stellar performance serves as the film’s emotional core.  His character is described as a “living saint” and “the nicest person I’ve ever met” and while that may sound over-exaggerated, it’s actually a fair description.  Rogers offers several “pearls of wisdom” throughout the film and it’s hard not feel better about life while watching his calm demeanour and listening to his comforting voice.  It’s earned Hanks his first Academy Award nomination in 19 years.

With so many possible angles and so much material to draw from, the two-person writing team made the decision to focus on a very small fragment of Rogers’ life.  It’s centred on a cynical journalist (Rhys) from Esquire magazine who finds his view of the world transformed after reluctantly agreeing to interview the famed entertainer.  It’s loosely based on an encounter between Rogers and award-winning writer Tom Junod that took place in 1998 (although his character has been quasi-fictionalised for the film).

A small problem with this approach is that Rogers, as the more interesting of the duo, is given less screen time than the not-so-intriguing journalist.  I’d also argue that the journalist’s tale is too obvious and predictable.  You always know where it’s heading.  The film offers a fleeting look behind Rogers’ façade (if he ever had one) with references to his kids and his “not so perfect” qualities but, unlike the journalist, the film chooses not to push as deeply into that space.  It’s a curious choice.

Criticisms aside, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood captures the essence of Fred Rogers and is likely to put a smile on the toughest of faces.  He was one of a kind.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2020

Three weeks ago, director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) showed how to make a creative, engaging, powerful war film.  This week, director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) gives us the complete opposite.  Midway is a bloated, confusing, cliché-laden World War II movie that isn’t worthy of the actual events it is trying to recreate.

We’re told from the outset that the Battle of Midway was “the most important naval battle in American history.”  Most are familiar with Pearl Harbour but this lesser-known confrontation occurred around a tiny atoll, measuring just 6km², in the middle of Pacific Ocean.  Over 3,000 soldiers were killed as the United States Navy fought off the substantive Imperial Japanese Navy across four days in June 1942.  Emmerich’s film runs for 138 minutes as, in addition to the battle, it chronicles the skirmishes and strategy discussions in the months beforehand.

Writer Wes Tooke (Colony) falls into the trap of covering too many characters in too short a time period.  As an example, there’s a sequence where we’re introduced (in some detail) to a young soldier who has been overcome by fear and lacks the courage to jump in a fighter plane.  Why go to such lengths to develop the character given his irrelevance to the broader story?  The same can be said of Aaron Eckhart who plays an air force flight commander who gets stuck in China and then disappears from the narrative.  Again, what’s the point of that subplot?

As for those who do get ample screen time, they all feel like they’ve been lifted from a 1980s action movie.  There’s the gung-ho cowboy pilot who risks his life and hates doing things by the book (Ed Skrein), there’s the concerned housewife who has nothing else to do except for stressing back on shore (Mandy Moore), and there’s the reluctant supreme commander who, having been specifically requested by the President, comes in to save his country (Woody Harrelson). 

It’s a decent cast but they’re burdened by dreadful dialogue.  A commander admires an act as “the bravest damn thing I’ve ever seen” while a pilot gees up his fellow comrades by saying “we’re going to give them a shellacking!”  Let’s not forget the soldier who mentions it’s his last day of sea duty… I wonder what will happen to him???  A puzzling decision has also been made to provide a small glimpse of the Japanese perspective but it isn’t given the weight it deserves (cover it properly or don’t cover it at all).

Perhaps the worst material is saved for Patrick Wilson who plays an intelligence officer with a “sixth sense” for foreseeing the Imperial Navy’s strategy.  He’s the stereotypical character we’ve seen in many action movies before – the smart, scientific guy who everyone doubts and ignores (it happens countless times in this film) but when everyone realises his worth, they’re quick to pat him on the back and follow his every suggestion.

The big battle scenes during the final 45 minutes aren’t too bad but they’re the only redeeming quality of this tired World War II flick.  Many other filmmakers have done it before… and done it much better.