Film Reviews: April 2008 Archives

This fun-filled film came out in time to make best use of the school Easter holidays, and it was clearly aimed at a younger audience. Garth Jennings (who also directed the film remake of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) this time breaks that hallowed rule of not working with children, and appears to survive.

There have been many films about making films; watching this one I presumed that the story was semi-autobiographical, having been penned by Jennings as well, and was therefore possibly a more personal film than THGTOG.

The story revolves around the two central characters, Will, and Lee. They are opposite sides of the same coin. They appear to be children who are suffering a little from not having their full complement of parents present in their lives. Will is looked after by his Mum in a strict Plymouth Brethren household. Lee meanwhile is bullied by his older brother Laurence who manages the house in their parents' absence. While Lee is the more outrageous and street-wise character when compared to his soon-to-be-friend Will, they both have another thing in common - a powerful imagination.

After a chance meeting in the coridoor at school, they eventually become friends and Will is cajoled into helping Lee with making a film for a competition. As it turns out Will subverts Lee's original intentions creating his own character the 'Son of Rambow'.

While this is a simple film in some respects, and not ground-breaking in terms of style or artistry, there is a fair amount going on here for family entertainment. The film is set in the 80s and is quite nostalgic in some respects. There are also various in-jokes for older viewers. Additionally the arrival of a French-exchange class adds to the fun and dynamic of the tale. Inevitably there is a hint of a moral message, but it did not appear to be too heavy handed.

One of the fun aspects of the film is the occasional glimpse into Will's imagination. As an avid doodler we occasionally perceive his hand-drawn view of the world superimposed onto the footage. I could have taken a lot more of this, and I thought it worked really well as a visual treat during the film. I also thought that the children's acting was pretty good as well, certainly good enough to allow me to immerse myself in the action.

Ironically the film serves as a really good advert for the Sylvester Stallone 'Rambo: First Blood' movie which fires the imagination of the main protagonists. Proof of this was overheard recently in a conversation as I passed a group of schoolboys. I imagine a lot of children will be getting into the action movies of the 1980s as a result!

****1/2 (out of 5)

This latest offering from veteran British director Mike Leigh stands in marked contrast to his previous piece, Vera Drake, a sombre tale of back-street abortion. Happy-Go-Lucky is light-hearted and unchallenging, but that does not mean it does not have a message. The message seems to be that personal life is meaningless and worthless - that we should all live publicly, for the public good, helping our fellow men and women the way Poppy, the main character does - that we should be bright and cheery members of the community without bothering to establish a private life. Significantly, Poppy's relationship (when she finally gets round to forming one, in between her other commitments and activities) is with someone she met through her work as a primary school teacher: again, the public persona replaces, or merges with, the private one. I'm not sure that I subscribe to this message, that private life is worthless, but thankfully that didn't stop me enjoying the film.

As a Mike Leigh fan, I couldn't help making comparisons and parallels with his previous work, and Life Is Sweet is the film that Happy-Go-Lucky most resembled to my mind. That is probably because it shared with that earlier film a preoccupation with women's lives and choices. In this film, as in Life Is Sweet, women are shown choosing between independence and family life, between conformity and quirky individuality. Career Girls also focussed on the position of women in modern society, but that film did not contain any scenes of domesticity whereas in Happy-Go-Lucky we have the visit to the married and pregnant sister's house. In comparison with her pregnant sister, Poppy seems relaxed, self-aware and vibrant: an advertisement for the modern singleton's lifestyle of clubbing, pubbing and travelling. Domesticity and motherhood are seen as implicitly dowdy and unfashionable, which contrasts with the picture presented in Life Is Sweet, in which Alison Steadman is very sympathetic and likable as the warm-hearted and humorous housewife mum of female adolescent twins (two girls, one bulimic, who are struggling with what it means to be a modern woman). Have Mike Leigh's views of family life changed over the years? One wonders if that has anything to do with his personal circumstances. Perhaps I am reading too much into these character portrayals. There did seem to be a slight bias in favour of the single, unattached lifestyle.

The best scenes in the film were undoubtedly the driving lesson scenes. Mike Leigh is spot-on and razor-sharp in his insight that it is behind the wheel that modern man (or woman) reveals him (or her) self in his (or her) true colours. The uptight driving instructor is played brilliantly and hilariously by Eddie Marsan, an actor who impressed in another recent British film, Grow Your Own (about allotments, and definitely worth seeing). Poppy and Scott are heading for a collision course from the word go, and their final showdown is the climax of the whole film. The schoolroom scenes are also interesting and insightful, but in these, Mike Leigh's political correctness came through a little too strongly. Most of the ingredients of a great Mike Leigh film are here, in particular the telling and surprising camera angles that seem to catch the characters off-guard. There is always something magic about the way Leigh lingers on a disillusioned or wistful face, isolates an impatient gesture, or simply captures on camera the daydreaming and the wishful thinking in which we all indulge. Leigh is a voyeur, a master of the intimate and the small-scale, and that is why I find it odd that he should start subscribing to the view that it is not who we are in private and at home that counts, but how we behave at work. What I felt was missing from this film was a good balance of characters: Poppy monopolises the director's sympathy and attention, leaving the other characters (apart from the monstrous driving instructor) in the shade. As a result, the film lacked depth and richness and felt a little superficial.

Veteran director Martin Scorsese has been there and done that, and as far as making movies is concerned has a wardrobe full of T-shirts. So it seems that he now occupies himself by making movies about things that personally interest him.

After his excellent collaborative work of 'The Blues' and the 'No Direction Home' Bob Dylan film he turns his attention to 'The Rolling Stones'.

This work, shot at a concert given in aid of Bill Clinton's charitable foundation (and part of the ex-President's birthday celebrations), gives a close up insight into the onstage antics of the 'Stones''. The footage starts with a very brief glimpse of arrangements being made for the concert. This includes some interesting dialogues and discussions about how the shoot of the concert would actually happen. The cut into the opening act occurs swiftly, with as little notice as Scorsese apparently was given as to the running order of the numbers in the set. Once into the flow of the concert there are interludes of archive material.

The main thing that struck me about this film was the cinematography. It was excellent. Just getting a good set of cameras and settings that would capture the visuals with all the stage lighting and movement must have been a major feat in itself. I pondered what a difficult task it must have been to soak up all the on-stage action. One gets the impression that there must have been a lot more going on.

Unlike a normal film where the environment is carefully controlled the Stones throw themselves about the place with abandon. Despite their age they put on a good performance, and Scorsese and his camera team record the vitality so well. The colours stand out immediately, and the shots are so intimate on occasion that you practically flinch as Mick Jagger's phlegm flies over the microphone.

However, this is the big screen, so there is plenty of background action to enjoy as well once you get used to the overall impact. I was especially entertained by the attempts of the groupies to attract the attentions of the band, and I began to wonder which ones would be successful in their attempts to woo the stars, or whether Bill Clinton would swoop in and grab the action for himself!

As for the archive material, I would have loved to have seen a little more. It really made the film for me (not being a major Rolling Stones fan) to see some classic clips. Of special note was the bowl-haircut of drummer Charlie Watts in one of the scenes which made him look almost exactly like Javier Bardem's character Chigur in 'No Country for Old Men'.

During the course of the concert there were numerous guest appearances, including Jack White and Christina Aguilera. The appearance of the latter seemed to really upset the groupies for some reason. Of special note however was Buddy Guy, who almost stole the show!

There were some good songs by the headliners though and while the encores were slightly predictable I came away feeling that I'd had a reasonably exhilarating experience - without having to stand for two hours or deafen myself.

**** (out of 5)

The best scene in My Brother Is An Only Child was, in my opinion, the one where the family (two brothers, one sister and both parents) are walking home together along the road, after Accio, the younger of the two brothers, has returned home from the seminary where he was training to be a priest. He has given up and everyone is angry. The agreement was to punish him with a stony silence, but this being an Italian family, everyone wants to get a word in. It is hilarious, realistic and strange all at the same time. Strange (almost surreal) because they are walking in a kind of procession, mother in front, the others behind, changing places but all following on through quiet, rural but bland scenery. The blandness of the scenery is no doubt deliberate: this is not the seductively beautiful Italy of countless films, but a rather grey, depressed and mundane place. Insofar as this resists cliche, it is commendable, but at times I craved a little more colour and drama.
The lack of drama was the most surprising thing about this film. Apart from the scene just described, it was rather meandering (covering at least ten, perhaps more, years in the lives of the brothers) and unstructured. The two brothers separately pursue careers of political activism, one (Manrico, the elder) as a communist, the other (Accio) as a fascist. However, apart from the occasional rally, march or minor riot (in which the brothers inevitably find themselves face to face) there was not much in the way of action. Perhaps what I mean is that nothing seems to change: one party opposes the other without any development or evolution in the deadlock. There didn't seem to be any real events in this conflict, just endless reaffirmations of old positions. Maybe that is what Italian postwar politics has been like (I am no expert on the subject) but it didn't make for very gripping viewing. I couldn't help contrasting this unfavourably with the exciting depiction of public life in another recent Italian film, Romanzo Criminale, which shows the involvement of a gang of criminals in politics and includes pieces of real footage embedded in the fictional narrative.
Yes, there was a plot of sorts: Manrico, the more charismatic of the two brothers, impregnates the girl he has been involved with on and off for years, and with whom Accio is secretly in love. The boy grows up seeing more of Accio than he does of his own father. Sorry for spoiling the plot, but the situation is so predictable as to seem banal. LIkewise Accio's romantic involvement with a married woman older than him by some ten years borders on cliche. Apart from this liaison, it is unclear what Accio does with his life. Very little. Okay, so that is the point (Accio complains at one point to Francesca, Manrico's girlfriend, that his life is empty), but at least the emptiness could have been dramatised a little more, enlivened with telling incident. The viewer is left feeling that the narration is thin and that the story might have been better told by focussing on a shorter time period and condensing a lot, instead of giving a family saga spreading over many years (it felt like about thirty but was probably more like ten). Having said this, there was a certain atmosphere to the film which lingered and made you feel as if you had lived through a period of history. The slightly mournful, nostalgic mood evoked as the young Accio wanders through the dusty streets of one of Mussolini's model fascist towns - now run-down rather than triumphant and energised as it was originally intended to be - rang true and intrigued. So my verdict on this film is mixed: its subtle and understated style made it seem genuine and authentic, but ultimately it failed to grip the viewer, or this viewer anyway.