Film Frolics

I've seen a lot of films lately. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights.

1) Fantastic Mr. Fox

Let's start at the top. I wasn't quite sure what to expect from a movie based around one of Roald Dahl's books. Nothing I've seen to date can compare remotely with the humour and rather dark overtones of Dahl's books. There was always something of the fairytale in them - and when I say fairytale I mean those of the Grimm variety where the baddies got their comeuppance in the end and no ending involved a Disney cliche where the characters solved their differences and the evil witch lived out the rest of her days as a fluffy bunny rabbit.

Let's review; George's Marvellous Medicine? Evil granny gets so small that she disappears. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The other children end up stretched and distorted out of proportion for their bad behaviour. The BFG? The giants are thrown into a pit and forced to eat the most disgusting vegetable imaginable for the rest of their lives. Quite a few of Dahl's villains met grizzly ends, and while he wrote the books for children, quite a few of them, such as Matilda and James and the Giant Peach, actually had some quite mature ideas in them that only an adult could understand. The man was, let's be fair to him, quite the literary genius in some areas.

Therefore when I realised that Fantastic Mr Fox wasn't simply going to be a rehash of the plot told by puppets, I as really pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is excellent and flows incredibly naturally. The characters are strangely realistic, despite the fact that you're constantly aware that the animation isn't by any means smooth. George Clooney and Meryl Streep do themselves credit with their renditions, breathing life into the puppets and making them strangely believable to the point that some moments in the movie are peculiarly moving. Fantastic Mr Fox doesn't, perhaps, capture the kind of darkness that Dahl sewed into his work, but is instead mature in an entirely different but no less appealing way. The supporting cast are very good, and the way that the puppets move is endearing, made even more so by the jangly banjo music that makes up most of the soundtrack.

I will say that the plot does err on the side of Hollywood once it runs out of story from Dahl's book. It was, after all, not a long novel, and doesn't an especially climactic ending. Any negativity I might have felt towards moving away from the original story was utterly eclipsed by the remarkable realness of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Fox, brought to life through their respective voice actors and a clearly competent writer. It's quite remarkable the depth of the relationship created between these two little puppets in just a few short scenes.

Go. Go go go.

2) Up

I first heard about this film when Gareth reported to me that he would "never get back" the two hours he spent watching it. Having heard better reviews from other friends, I saw it last weekend, and can appreciate a little of the sentiment from both sides.

The introduction to this movie is both surprising and moving. I won't spoil it, but I will say it was my personal highlight from the movie, despite the fact that it did make me smudge my eye make up a little bit. This movie is underpinned by a sad event that never really allows you to forget it. Which I think is actually the point, which is why it's so clever. The lead character - a bitter and woe begotten senior called Carl - carries his sorrows around with him, both physically and mentally. The symbolism here is apparent from the word go - you'll see what I mean if you see the film. Everything else that goes on - and I do mean everything - seems utterly superlative in comparison to the level of sympathy that you feel towards this otherwise fairly unlikeable character.

As with all Disney films, the thing is rife with moral philosophy and it's impossible to avoid. Other than this though, what frustrated me most was the real lack of thought given to the film's other characters. With the exception of Russel - who is largely there to, in his youthful naivity, teach the most important lesson of all - the bad guy and his rag tag "henchmen" who are supposed to act as the comedy relief (though I was by no means relieved) were not thought out thoroughly and therefore not truly realised. This is sad because over the years Disney has produced some amazing villains - Scar, Jafar, Ursula to name some of my personal favourites - and this is far below their usual standard.

It's a shame because if these side elements had been better it would have created a far more rounded experience, instead of the film having highs and lows. Profoundly moving in places, but feels somehow unfinished, like something that should have been a short, but was filled in with fluff to make it last 1 and a half hours.

3) Changeling

This one I watched on Sky Movies on my XBox - I've seen quite a few movies of late this way - it's marvellous.

This is heavy material. I already knew the twist to this movie before I started watching it, and it surprised me how long it was. Angelina gives a strong performance - in fact - the whole cast was not found wanting - the plot was believable in an occasionally surreal way, but the storyline was so harrowing in places as to almost make it difficult to watch.

It's interesting that I'm having trouble writing this review. I don't know whether that's because the movie left a bad taste in my mouth, or because I didn't relate to the characters. The whole thing was good - it was well made, it was well put together, but somehow everything was a little over the top. The number of disturbing events that occur in this movie are high - things have this way of going from bad to worse and there never seems to be a moment in the film when somebody isn't crying or shouting at someone else.

It was like being on an evening out with a couple you've known for a long time who are coming to the natural end of their relationship but don't really know it yet.

There's all this arguing; crossed words and asides where they subtly undermine each other, then they argue, then one of them walks off and has to calm down, then they spend the rest of the evening not talking to each other... I've taken this image far too far, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is that level of discomfort I felt sitting through this movie. It gave you a thorough sense of hopelessness that never really abated until the end credits finally rolled.

4) The Duchess

A good though not excellent bodice-ripper. I've wanted to see this movie for ages, as I like Keira Knightley as an actress, even if there is a small part of me that wants to pin her down and forcefeed her McDonalds cheeseburgers. Keira somehow always gives a bit more believability to characters in formal attire as she's remarkably natural even if the dialogue is wooden.

Ralph Fiennes plays an excellent bastard in this movie, and the fact that it ends without you thinking he's still an enormous tool is credit to an already highly decorated actor. The costumes and general feel of the movie are well put-together - indeed - even when a film is let down by it's dialogue or poor chemistry, the costumes are usually well put together, as though the designers have more passion for the period than the director does for his own movie.

What it lacked, however, was believability. It's interesting that I bring that word up both in this review and the one for Changeling as both of these movies are based around real events, but for some reason that doesn't make them more real. The people in it don't feel as human as they should, they feel too assembled, painted pulled and plucked. Maybe these directors have simply tried to squeeze too much drama into these movies. In one sense the plot was excellent - the ball was constantly rolling, events were consistently moving, the scenes were interesting and diverse, and yet I found something wanting because for all of this, the events felt too much like a creative writing piece written for GCSE english. Too much action, too much drama, too many tears and too much screaming. Are they really trying to tell us that every meaningful female protagonist in history dealt with her problems by stomping her foot, shouting and slamming her bedroom door?

Too much melodrama, not enough reality. I enjoyed it for it's over the top dramatic side, but I didn't find it believable. I just wanted to see some real people.

Maybe, baby

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5201695/First-TV-commercial-for-morning-after-pill-will-increase-teenage-promiscuity.html

Assuming that statistics aren't the enormous lie that most people perpetrate them to be, we have to summise that underage pregnancy in the UK is a big problem. You've heard the most of my views before regarding this; but summed up, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion based on abortion statistics that too many women are using them as a form of contraception. People become careless, they forget their pill, they neglect to use a condom, but instead of worrying about the consequences, they say; "Nevermind".

It therefore surprises me to some extent that Ann Widdecombe is taking such issue with these advertisements for the morning after pill. We have to take it as read that drunken mishaps and carelessness will unfortunately occur from time to time, and it is much wiser to have a safety net that can be applied the following day, before any serious damage has been done. What I think the problem with Widdecombe's argument is, is that she is confusing the issue of lowering teenage pregnancy with lowering the number indulging in underage sex.

"Overage sex" as I suppose it might be called, or more specifically, "sexual intercourse over and above and age of consent" is not illegal, and it's not something Widdecombe has the right to badger young people about. According to UK law, once we are 16 and above it is the individual's choice whether they engage in sex. Widdecombe's chief objection appears to be that young people will see the advertisements, and conclude that it is now ok for them to have sex. This seems an illogical standpoint - after all, we advertise condoms after the watershed - does that encourage underage sex? Furthermore, there are multiple "ads" regarding the danger of STIs, which surely affect the more sensible of us. The advert for the morning after pill is not suggesting that individuals shouldn't use a condom, but is informing them that they can buy the pill over the counter and save themselves a lot of grief and embarrassment. If people are still determined to have unprotected sex despite the numerous warnings of STIs, then I think it will be difficult to find another way to get through to them, and at least this way we can stop people who are evidently too irresponsible to protect themselves from bringing another life into the world that they are ill-prepared to care for.

J
xx

I whine, You whine, Everybody whines

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/beauty-pageant-women

First, read this link.

When I originally read the title, I felt elated; finally someone who agreed with me that mysogyny is still rife in almost all forms of media, finally a discussion where someone else complains that they're tired of hearing gag after gag insulting women on baseless stereotypes for cheap laughs.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed when I found out Ms Gold was actually referring to Beauty Pageants. I wasn't even aware that these are ironic, to be honest. Not only that I was under the impression that they are voluntary and not actually that widely publicised. In fact, I can't seem to recall ever in living memory knowing when the Miss Great Britain competition was held.

I can't help but wonder why Tanya gives a damn why a collection of beanpole girls want to strut up and down a stage in front of an ugly and insulting man. No one's asking her to take her clothes off (thank God) and while I'm sure her answers to the pageant questions would ultimately be more inciteful and grammatically correct, her being not-terribly-attractive and weighing twice as much as the other contestants might rather stand in the way of her prevailing in a beauty pageant.

Maybe this all sounds a little cruel but I just don't really understand what part it is about this antiquated ritual that bothers her enough to write a column about it. It's tabloid fluff, like Big Brother, like Posh and Becks, like celebrity pregnancies. The only people who care about who wins are the women as stupid as those competing. Let's be honest, if these girls are having a hard time speaking their "brians" and they're happy miserably counting calories and starving themselves then I figure a beauty pageant is the best place for them.

Firstly; it gives our footballers someone to invite to the FIFA Christmas party.
Secondly; we know where they all are so we can avoid their retarded antics.
Thirdly; if we ever get sick of the whole affair we know when and where to drop the napalm.

I hate to say it, but I think this article is just proof again that women's worst enemies are themselves. It's not okay according to Tanya Gold to be just judged for your beauty, even if it's the only thing you've got going for you, no, you have to be judged on your intellect instead because that's an altogether fairer system. It's easy to see why Tanya would prefer the smarts test over the looks test, though currently I'd say her chances aren't looking good in either category.