In Search of Film: 50/50: Can laughter be the best cure?

In Search of Film: 50/50: Can laughter be the best cure?: So I have taken the opportunity to relish in the little free time that I have to catch up with the blog, and, most importantly, combat the t...

50/50: Can laughter be the best cure?

So I have taken the opportunity to relish in the little free time that I have to catch up with the blog, and, most importantly, combat the titanic list of films I need to see, which continues to grow each and every day! So yesterday, full of cold and wrapped up in bed I thought 50/50 would cure me of my woes. *sarcasm*

I expect a lot of people, at least in the UK, to be wondering what the hell 50/50 is – do not fear, you are not the victim of a lone-film-fan cult, whose aim is to vanquish all film fans so that he/she can become the “only gay in the village” of film. Not at all. Surprisingly the film, although featuring popular actors; Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogan, Anjelica Huston and Anna Kendrick, failed in its British PR. I saw all of 3 adverts for this film, now considering I spend much of my waking life in cinemas, in arts venues and now, thanks to Netflix, sat on my sofa – that is substantially low! The fact that this film was released a little over a month before Christmas, MAY have had slight negative impacts: with the success of Arthur Christmas and Cancer, traditionally, not being a festive topic, it was due to have PR limitations.

The film follows a stereotypical modern American 20-something - Adam (Gordon-Levitt); he is physically fit, (demonstrated by the opening running scene), he doesn’t smoke (demonstrated by his rejection of an offer of a cigarette) and he recycles (highlighted during a medical consultation - which also enabled him to reiterate the two above personal qualities). After long periods of back pain, he visits his doctor only to discover that he has a rare genetic spinal tumour and, upon further investigation, one that carries a 50/50 survival rate. We then witness the aftermath, watching Adam tell his aesthetically-sympathetic girlfriend, comical best-friend and parents (which includes a dramatic mother and a father plagued by Alzheimer). The reaction of his best friend Kyle, is awkwardly funny, as he reassures Adam by referencing celebrities who have beaten cancer; which sadly included the late Patrick Swayze. As expected, the film maintains the plight of a traditional love/ tragedy story structure: boy loves girl; girl does the dirty on boy; boy, unsuccessfully, seeks relief in casual sex; boy discovers new girl, old girl recognises the error of her ways; boy rejects old girl and seeks relationship with new girl!

Though I dislike the conventional structure that the film retains, I applaud the way they manipulate this structure to discuss the complexity of illness and disease; in other words I hate the love story but I love the way they use cancer as a catalyst. Though the film centralises around his disease, it acts as a foundation for the exploration of relationships, love and the individual during times of trauma and hardship, and how they subsequently triumph and fail.

This film also demonstrated a very rare quality. It is one, of very few films, that I can say with my hand on my heart; the casting was superlative! I have not one negative word to say about any member of this cast, on the contrary, I find myself detracted from the story and instead discussing these acting accomplishments! Maybe it is due to the rarity of the these events, that I have found myself rambling about Gordon-Levitt’s triumph in portraying a complex character, with such poise and wealth, and Rogan’s success is maintaining the perfect level of comedy without allowing it to cross into the realms of “Superbad” meets “Philadelphia”. I enjoyed this film not just because of the careful handling of a common yet controversial subject and the wonderful casting but also because I wasn’t forced into laughing, the comedy of the film was actually quite intermittent. I advise you to watch this film as a drama, as you will find yourself laughing at its few comedic treats rather than being let down because, surprising, the film about cancer wasn’t as funny as you expected.

In celebration of film: it's award season!

So with the BAFTAs passed, the Oscars are now on the horizon!

With such an amazing ensemble of cinematic magic it is going to be a difficult decision but here is my piece on the nominees I have viewed so far, albeit only a few of them:

Best Picture:

Hugo 

Another Scorsese masterpiece, a beautiful and complex homage to the life and work of  Georges Méliès! Explored through the tragic life of young Hugo, we discover that through the most somber times, cinema continues to be our escape from reality into the lands of dreams! Kingsley is stunning as Méliès, and the film ultimately evokes a sense of nostalgia to all who have experienced the work of Méliès and early cinema.

Midnight in Paris

Again, with the nostalgia! Mignight in Paris brought out the literary fanatic in me, sitting on the edge of my seat trying to guess what literary figure was in front of me and Kathy Bates at Gertrude Stein was a surprising delight! Allen, has again successfully captured the milieu of Paris. This film offered an unconvention cast, well for Woody Allen at least, and when I say unconventional - I mean Owen Wilson! But Wilson was, well, great! There is something goofy about Wilson, maybe it’s is hair or his awkward manner, which for all intents and purposes usually finds me flicking over from many of his films, however, his mannerisms totally fitted with the characters portrayal - another great example of Woody Allen's wonderful casting!

In Search of Film: It’s Hunting Season!

In Search of Film: It’s Hunting Season!: So after much deliberation, I took 2 hours out of my day to watch the one of the last B-movies of 2011, The Troll Hunter. This ...

It’s Hunting Season!

So after much deliberation, I took 2 hours out of my day to watch the one of the last B-movies of 2011, The Troll Hunter. This Norwegian monster mockumentary follows a group of students as they attempt to uncover the truth when dead bears begin to show up. Manned with a camera, microphone, and boom the students begin their quest for the answer – Who (or what) is killing these bears? They soon encounter a mysterious character who, without meaning to sound bias, has poacher written all over him - from his dirtied, frayed hat to his worn hiking boots. And his distant persona and reluctance in assisting the students’ investigation does little to disprove this theory. However, similar to the belief in Britney’s come back – this theory was untrue! A hunter he is but his game is not measly 7 foot, 0.5 ton bears... his game is 200 foot, 30 ton trolls!

As the troll hunter warms to the students’ curious nature, he decides to share his profession with them and in true monster fashion, he refrains from conveying this through speech (I assume for fear of being institutionalised) and instead lures them into the troll infested forests and awaits his monsters. We catch glimpse of our first troll quite early on in the film, which may sound obvious but with monster films it is hard to tell if the creature will frequent the screen or remain in the shadows. The first encounter is fast paced and in night vision, which enables you to gage a clearer image of the troll but does not for long – retaining a level of believability to the creature and the scene. As the pursuit for trolls continues and the student’s frequent the woods more, we are invited to see more of the trolls visually, and genetically! This is aided by a somewhat random rendezvous with a scientist who has been working with the troll hunter to better understand the trolls’ genetic make-up. This includes a fatal reaction to light; petrifying the elderly and exploding the young and of course, a taste for the converted. The blood of the converted is at the top of the menu for any troll, like alcohol for alcoholics, heroin for heroin addicts and talent for Kieran Knightly. However, it is not just their genome that the scientist is interested in, there is an illness spreading amongst the colony. Guess what... they have rabies! 200 foot, 30 ton, rabies infested trolls... what more could you want from a monster film?

It was by this point I began to question to relevance to the bear deaths and the trolls. Was it just by chance that they came across the trolls whilst investigating the bear fatalities or was this all somehow interlinked?

You can exhale now!

The bears are scapegoats! Brought in by a the Troll Security Service (TSS) whose role is to ensconce the existence of trolls from the public, and what better way to do so than import deceased bears and strategically place them near the carcases of the trolls’ victims. This involves a collection of amusing scenes, including a TSS agent falsifying bear tracks but inadvertently confusing the left and the right paw, as well as an occurrence with a group of comedic Polish bear smugglers.

Needless to say, there are several deaths and a multitude of close-calls. Whilst taking every opportunity to show the carnage caused by the trolls. My advice it to watch this film for what it is, pure simple troll infested fun. 

TT3D: Closer to the Edge.

This terrifyingly beautiful documentary follows Guy Martin - lorry mechanic and motorcycle enthusiast, as he prepares to compete in the infamous TT races of the Isle of Man. For those of you, alike myself, who are unfamiliar with the TT races and super bike mania in general it is best described by one race spectator as “Hard Bikes being driven by Hard Men!” But it is Martin himself who provides the central, and perplexing, narration on the sport and its community which is supported, or sometimes conflicted, by other racers.

The opening scene has viewers roaring through the streets of the Isle of Man, from the perspective of the riders. This is very effective at two things: evoking empathy from the audience, providing a accessibility to the in-the-moment emotions of the riders as well as a literal rider’s point-of-view and  successfully making me a little travel sick from the comfort from my, very stationary, sofa. Though I refused to permit my churning stomach make any impact on my enjoyment of this film.

Exploring this, somewhat, niche sport through the very individual character of Martin is an unlikely success. Myself being, as Martin describes, a “Southern Fairy” I am not familiar with the dialect of North Lincolnshire, and to be both brutally and shamefully honest, I found him a little difficult to... interpret. Initially! His character also seemed a little alien to me: he is depicted as an almost singular character, and by his own admission, he holds little to no interest in anything but bikes and the TT.

However, Guy’s character is very easy to warm to and it is quickly realised that it is not necessarily about the passion for bikes but passion itself that allows the viewer to connect with Guy. As the story develops Guy’s character splits both aesthetically and physically. When in his home county, or in the comfort of his van, he is the oil-covered bike patriot, but when he is immersed into TT world he becomes the mysterious anti-hero. With a succession of slow motion caption, and the mystery that is itself evoked by motorcycle attire, it is very easy to forget the Lincolnshire boy that hides within it. The motorcyclists’ outfit is very good a dehumanising its incumbent, and this itself sexualises Guy.

However, the dehumanisation of bikers by their costumes are most apparent in the presentation of the racer’s fatalities. As the inevitable happens and the accidents begin, shamefully, it is somewhat easier to watch a masked figure being thrown about than an unmasked figure. Yet, when the pictures of those lost in their quest for TT success follow, it is difficult to hold back the tears. Many critics believing this documentary’s release was a direct response to the success of Senna, and I see the similarities in Senna and Martin’s personalities and their passions, but I also see it in many other people – Passion is universal.

Are you Afraid of the Dark?

So Katie Holmes has been released from the Cruise home once again to return to her original career (prior to being Mrs Cruise) as actress. This annual occurrence sees her in the remake of the 70’s horror, Don’t be afraid of the Dark. Not to be confused with the 90’s children’s TV show, Are you afraid of the Dark, in which a group of children sat around a camp fire, burning the same 3 logs, and exchanging ghostly tales. No! This is a story in which a young girl, Sally, goes to live with her father and step-mother, in an eerie manor house. Maybe it is the grandeur of the house itself, with its dark corners and looming staircases, far from the semi-detached homes of many twentieth century westerners, that makes it immediately unnerving. However, a part from the preordained imagery of the “scary house”, there is very little else in this film that had me reaching for the nearest pillow.

What the film lacked in continuity it replaced in longevity. Instead of explaining itself, it just kept going; apparently adopting an “it will call come out in the wash” narrative style. Regardless of the films inclusion of the traditional horror characters, all of them failed to fulfil their preordained and pre-scripted roles. A frustrating example of this is that of the male housekeeper (son of the previous housekeeper) whose character continuously displays a esoteric knowledge of an antecedent event, which he never discloses to the family, ergo, failing to install the crucial initial level of doubt into one of the family member’s minds. Then in a Shining-like instance, he is removed from the house, hitherto the story, before he can. The British maid of the house, similarly, confused me. I have been indoctrinated to believe that British maids in horror films either, A – are aware of the house’s terrifying past and remain within to provide a level of protection to the unknowing owners, or B – are in on it! In this instance, neither was implied. Alternatively, I was left with a nescient old woman whose role was limited to responding to frequent screams and ensuring the set remained clean whilst a suitable level of creepy dirtiness was maintained.

The personification of evil/ threat in the film was manifested in the forms of multiple mal-nourished gremlins. Unfortunately for this film, one of my person pet hates in horror is the prolonged exposure of creatures, ghosts, demons and so forth. When they are not the narrative lead. For example in Beetlejuice (1988) the spirits are central characters and we must, therefore, be able to see them in order to identify with them and their story. Whereas, Incideous (2011), similarly to Don’t be afraid of the Dark, continually exposes the creatures/ spirits, allowing the audience to become accustomed to the form and, therefore, removes the aspect of the unknown – which for me is the critical in generating fear. Individual imagination has the capacity to create something significantly more terrifying than a collective idea of what is scary, because our minds can curate using our own fears. This is why shadows and images out of the corner of the eye always seem to evoke more fear than a midget demon which pinball eyes and a significantly enlarged ribcage. Add to that there is something abnormally cute about them, they are so small, and I’m sure with a good meal and some love and affection they would be ideal pets. I am adamant the owner of Vodermort cat would love these little devils!

Overall, this film has disillusioned my prior admiration for del Toro's horror capabilities, and left me continuing my search for a good old horror film.