Tuesday, 13 January 2026

On demand: "A River Runs Through It"


1992's
 A River Runs Through It stands as a strong contender for the most handsome film of the Nineties, shot by Philippe Rousselot under the eye of director Robert Redford, and blessed with the young Brad Pitt before the camera, cutting a dash in fine period tailoring. The material is unusual, to say the least: Redford and screenwriter Richard Friedenberg here adapt the academic Norman Maclean's memoir of growing up in rural Montana in the first decades of the 20th century, when the author was caught between, on one hand, the traditions of the church (represented onscreen by Presbyterian preacher father Tom Skerritt, typically terrific) and a swelling passion for flyfishing, presented as an Edenic state of innocence, a suspension of time that gets lost as the years roll on. Craig Sheffer - the Josh Brolin of his day - is Maclean; Pitt his younger, more impulsive and distractible brother Paul; and Emily Lloyd, ascending to Hollywood in the wake of Wish You Were Here, flashes her stocking tops as the flapper who catches the brothers' eyes. Redford himself provides the narration as the older, wiser Norman, suggesting a filmmaker who's fallen head over heels in love with an aspect of this world, formalising his affection for and fascination with an America he was personally too young to have known.

With Maclean (who'd died two years earlier) as his guide, Redford undertakes to recreate and thereby describe a particular, all but disappeared way of American life. There's naturally a certain nostalgia in play: long afternoons with nothing to do save read poetry, write love letters and repair to the nearest riverbank, a church social that involves thick jam sandwiches and banjo-picking. Yet Redford also notes the prejudice levelled at those indigenous folk who come into these golden boys' lives, and a sense (not quite Lynchian, but heading down a similar path) of a dead-end darkness lying around the mountains and beyond the endless cornfields. Not everyone here will get out alive. It's the work of Redford the nature boy (the fishing sequences are ravishing, but even the regulation set-ups have a breeziness and light that banishes anything too stuffy) and Redford the liberal, of Redford the sometime Gatsby and the Redford who made Ordinary People: nobody else would have landed on this material, nobody else would have fallen quite this hard for it, and nobody else would have filmed it this doggedly. If it remains fundamentally episodic - a slightly shapeless patchwork of moods and tones, old-man memories that likely cohered better on the page - it still rings very true on brotherhood and the unknowability of those closest to us, and it leaves behind intriguing questions as well as a warm, fuzzy afterglow. There's much to be said for dancing in the river of life - especially if you do it in the magic hour.

A River Runs Through It is now streaming via Prime Video and the BFI Player.

Sunday, 11 January 2026

For what it's worth...




UK box office Top Ten (for the weekend of January 2-4, 2025):

1 (1) Avatar: Fire and Ash (12A) ***
2 (2) The Housemaid (15)
3 (5) Marty Supreme (15) ***
4 (4) Zootropolis 2 (PG)
6 (6) Anaconda (12A)
7 (new) Song Sung Blue (12A)
8 (7Wicked: For Good (PG)
9 (new) Back to the Past (15)
10 (9) Sentimental Value (15) **

(source: BFI)

My top five:
2. Labyrinth [above]
3. Happy Feet
  

DVD/Blu-Ray/Download top ten: 

1 (new) Wicked: For Good (PG)
2 (3) Dracula (15)
4 (8) Wicked: Part 1 (PG) **
5 (6) Jurassic World: Rebirth (12) **
6 (11) Sinners (15) ****
7 (13) A Minecraft Movie (PG)
8 (5) Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale (PG)
9 (16) How To Train Your Dragon (PG)


My top five: 
1. I Swear


Top five films on terrestrial TV this week:
1. A Few Good Men (Saturday, Channel 4, 10.35pm)
2. 12 Years a Slave (Sunday, Channel 4, 1am)
3. Top Gun: Maverick (Saturday, Channel 4, 8pm)
4. The Duke (Tuesday, BBC Two, 11pm)
5. 28 Days Later (Tuesday, BBC One, 11.40pm)

Topsy-turvy: "Hamnet"


Is there anything new to be done with the Bard? We've already seen
Shakespeare in Love and Shakespeare in his dotage (2018's Branagh-driven All is True) and Shakespeare in a perpetual midlife strop (Ben Elton's BBC sitcom Upstart Crow, with David Mitchell in the lead). With Hamnet, her adaptation of Maggie O'Farrell's novel, sometime Oscar winner Chloe Zhao offers us the sight of Shakespeare in grief - and attempting to alchemise his loss into enduring art. He is also, in this telling, a young Shakespeare and a notionally sexy Shakespeare (he's played by Paul Mescal, so individual mileage may vary), and you can't quite shake the suspicion that Zhao, herself trying to recover after the post-Nomadland turbulence of Marvel's The Eternals, must have pitched the project as some kind of Shakespeare origin story, as if the playwright were another Peter Parker. We join this Bard in his twenties, teaching Latin to his neighbours' children so as to pay off his glover father's debts; while there, he bumps into girl-next-door Agnes "Anne" Hathaway (Jessie Buckley). They have it off on a table in the pantry (sexy Shakespeare!), she inspires Romeo and Juliet, they wed, they have several kids, only for several of them to die either in childbirth or infancy, one son lending (a version of) his name to one of the writer's best known plays. Set against the playful, knowing, self-aware Shakespeare of the texts mentioned above, this is plainly serious Shakespeare, sober Shakespeare, sensible Shakespeare, simplified Shakespeare - and here, I'm afraid, is where Hamnet's problems begin.

What O'Farrell and Zhao intend to commemorate here is a period in their august subject's life where the natural order was comprehensively overturned, resulting in a father burying his son. Yet this seems to have been the case creatively, too: in most respects, Hamnet is the image of the dourly po-faced Hollywood history that would normally inspire ribald sending up in shows much like Upstart Crow. Certain scenes border on the ridiculous, many of them rooted in the conception of Agnes as some straggle-haired nature girl. Doubtless O'Farrell did her fair share of research into the limitations of 16th century midwifery in the course of writing the novel, but Zhao has her heroine giving birth alone in the forest with a mighty roar, and then - after a tasteful fade to black - reappearing with babe in arms, nary a tousled forelock out of place on either. Zhao's tendency to prettify everything is, I guess, a contrast to the ugliness of so much shot-on-digital fare, which may be one reason Hamnet has seduced as many awards voters as it has: if you're just in the market for sundappled English woodland, there's plenty of that here. But more often than not the prettification is misapplied, erodes credibility, invites snickering. Hamnet certainly has a Young Star Problem, in that the leads aren't remotely believable as historical figures: they're well-moisturised, gym-hardened young adults who've been invited to dress up on a school awayday to Stratford. The minibus is parked just off-camera throughout. (The one player who seems lived-in to any degree is Joe Alwyn as Buckley's brother, and that may only be because he courted Taylor Swift.)

In the absence of internally generated insights, this script keeps trying to impose 21st century psychology from without. Smacked around by a brutish dad, Will worries what kind of father he's going to be; after Hamnet's death, he starts work on a text about dads and lads (and ghosts). This really is Shakespeare for dummies: aha!, we're meant to go, so that explains that! (Toss all Shakespeare's writings off a cliff, and let's never think of him or his plays again.) Such persistent neatness is in conflict with the complexity and ambiguity that have kept folks coming back to this playwright over the years; worse still, it makes for punishingly flat and prosaic drama. Towards the end of its third series, Upstart Crow itself tackled Hamnet's death in a way that proved unexpectedly affecting, earning its emotion through good writing and playing. Zhao, by contrast, insists on having Buckley wail like a banshee every twenty minutes, recycles well-used Max Richterisms that signify this is A Serious Film, and concludes with a very silly scene in the Globe where Agnes, agog, has the experiences of the previous two hours reflected back to her through the medium of mummery. Aha, so that's what art does! (Toss all art off a cliff.) That Hamnet has occupied the place it has in the awards conversation may be down to slim end-of-year pickings - two consensus choices (One Battle After Another and Sinners) and then whatever you can cobble together - and/or that it's the sort of thing that has traditionally grabbed votes, nods and gongs: keywords Shakespeare, period drama, British craft credits, trauma. It struck this observer as an obligation nomination, phoney art, and - most bizarrely - a tale told far more rigorously in a lowly sitcom, surrounded by knob gags.

Hamnet is now showing in cinemas nationwide.

Thursday, 8 January 2026

"Giant" (Little White Lies Jan/Feb 2026)


It’s nearing a quarter-century since the retirement of “Prince” Naseem Hamed, Sheffield’s world champion boxer of Yemeni heritage. For a while, in the run-up to the new millennium, he was everywhere: transcending the sports section to provide primetime entertainment and front-page news, bolstering his swelling celebrity with both combative talent (career record: 36 wins, only one loss) and a showman swagger that fitted the shameless Nineties to a tee. What the Gallagher brothers were to the festival stage, so Hamed was to the boxing ring. Just as Oasis are back among us, so too is Prince Naz – albeit in the form of the Sly Stallone-produced biopic
Giant, written and directed by Gangs of London’s Rowan Athale, which forces the boxer’s story through the Britfilm cookie cutter and barely stays on its feet.

Athale begins in the early 1980s, where Irish trainer and occasional youth club DJ Brendan Ingle (Pierce Brosnan, introduced gyrating to The Sweet’s “Blockbuster”) takes delivery of the three young Hamed brothers from a mother concerned by the skinheads circling the family’s cornershop. Training montages ensue, as the diminutive, dancing Naseem (played by Ghaith and Ali Saleh as a child, and by Limbo’s Amir El-Masry as a young man) outpunches his siblings and starts to climb the Yorkshire boxing ladder. Shot around Sheffield itself, these scrappy early scenes sketch a haphazard spit-and-sawdust circuit, prompting chuckles from the increasingly exasperated relationship between no-nonsense trainer and a fighter who’d rather hang round the arcade trying to impress girls.

Yet one soon realises this story has been afforded much the same kid-gloves handling as the Eddie the Eagle and Elton John biopics. (Even before Toby Stephens turns up, effing and jeffing as the film’s sitcom idea of promoter Frank Warren.) Prejudice may lurk in these hills – schoolboy P-words, flat-out xenophobia from the man on the Sheffield omnibus – but the nation’s soap operas have had more nuanced and dramatically rewarding things to say about race. That conflict is eventually sublimated into a boxer-trainer squabble over purse money that plays as both contrived and phony. Worse: amid a fumbled final reel, Giant starts to insinuate that it’s really here to promote the Irishman Ingle over his sulky, money-grubbing charge. Initially cartoonish, it ends up deeply compromised and confused.

With the budget depriving Athale of his usual streaming-telly pyrotechnics, the look is forever closer to Mansfield than Madison Square Garden. The leads, at least, give individual scenes a little character. The more we see of him, the more El-Masry resembles Hamed, whether chomping choc ices in training or puffing out his chest on a mock-up TFI Friday. And there are the minor pleasures of watching Brosnan in his new, relaxed late period, letting his accent meander even as he passes the ultimate test of any movie trainer: you’d want someone this amiable in your corner. The material, however, throws in the towel long before the bathetic finale; the inevitable post-fadeout footage of the real Hamed in his dynamic prime is a hundred times more stirring than anything preceding it. 

Anticipation: At least it’s not a musical biopic – and this is a worthy story 3
Enjoyment: Two game leads fight a losing battle with punch-drunk, flyweight writing 2
In retrospect: Never a contender 1

Giant opens in selected cinemas from tomorrow.

In memoriam: Béla Tarr (Telegraph 07/01/26)


Béla Tarr
, who has died aged 70, was a Hungarian writer-director whose immersive, durational oeuvre anticipated the so-called “slow cinema” movement and yielded one of the towering masterworks of late 20th century film.

The film was Sátántangó (1994), a seven-and-a-quarter hour adaptation of László Krasznahorkai’s 1985 novel about a superstitious rural community thrown into turmoil by the arrival of a mystic poet. Shot in monochrome on the Great Plains over the course of two years, it matched Krasznahorkai’s long-running sentences with extended, unbroken takes, starting with an eight-minute prologue observing cattle swarming across a market square and through the muddy backroads of its woebegone setting.

Comprising 150 shots in total, often stalking hunched figures trudging down wind-tossed lanes, the film used the extra time to better define the parameters of a place and the vulnerabilities of a people swayed by the false prophet in their midst. In passing, Tarr’s camera caught microclimates, shifting affections and suspicions, and memorably – often hellishly – boozy nights at the village pub, but these were details within the bigger picture of lives going nowhere, and people marching headlong into existential dead ends.

The effect was strikingly lugubrious, prompting understandable concern for the real-life safety of a cat seen being tortured at one point. (Tarr insisted the scene was performed under veterinary supervision, and wondered why we weren’t more concerned about the two-legged participants.) Yet the engulfing darkness was frequently illuminated by droll flashes of wit, like the fate of the bibulous doctor (played by Peter Berling) who staggers out to replenish his pear brandy reserves in the film’s opening movement.

Upon first release, the consensus was that there had been nothing quite like it – and certainly few book-to-film adaptations that felt so complete. The debate was how a film that looked so conspicuously out of time spoke to the pre-millennial moment. Sátántangó was only funded after the collapse of Communist rule in Hungary, its underpinning narrative speaking to the curious spell fearmongering demagogues can cast on an especially credulous populace.

Some observers embraced the film as an alternative to the then-dominant Hollywood norm; there was a cosmic irony in the fact a film so doggedly pursuing its own path at its own pace should emerge in the same year as Jan de Bont’s relentless thriller Speed (1994). For his part, Tarr insisted the film should speak for itself: “When we are making a movie, we only talk about concrete situations – where the camera is, what will be the first and the last shot. We never talk about art or God."

The critics filled that void, astonished to discover the medium could still produce something so challenging and absorbing at the same time. Susan Sontag famously declared Sátántangó “enthralling for every minute”, adding she “could watch [it] every year for the rest of her life”. Digitally restored and rereleased to mark its 25th anniversary in 2019, it remained a mountain among movies, the K2 of cinema.

The attenuated nature of a Tarr production – the long, exacting shoots and shots – meant that follow-ups were never immediate, and then few and far between. These depended on the firm bonds connecting the director to a handful of fellow travellers, including Krasznahorkai, the composer and accordionist Mihály Víg (who played the poet in Sátántangó), the cinematographer Fred Kelemen, and the editor Ágnes Hranitzky, whom Tarr married in the early 1980s. As Tarr put it: “I was just the conductor, I put them all together.”

There was nothing quite as monumental as the breakthrough film, but several times Tarr came close to matching its impact. Werckmeister Harmonies (2000) – a slip of a film at two hours 25 minutes, composed of just 39 shots – was in the director’s own words “a kind of fairy tale” adapted from Krasznahorkai’s 1989 novel The Melancholy of Resistance. Dreamier and airier than its grounded predecessor, it nevertheless built towards the despairing widescreen image of a rotting whale carcass abandoned on a beach.

The Man from London (2007) signalled Tarr’s growing status within the cinematic and festival ecosystem. A deadpan thriller, adapted from the Georges Simenon novel and fashioned with overseas money, it even featured a recognisable face in the ever-adventurous Tilda Swinton, cast as the railwayman protagonist’s wife.

Tarr bade farewell to cinema with The Turin Horse (2011), composed in just 30 shots running an average of six minutes apiece. A pessimistic riff on the anecdote that sparked Nietzsche’s mental breakdown, the film described the relationship between a father and daughter living a miserly existence in a shack at the end of the world. Here, Tarr pushed his already demanding aesthetic to a new extreme: after some opening narration, no dialogue could be heard for a further 22 minutes.

By now, critics had got a firmer handle on the Tarr approach. In his New York Times review, A.O. Scott wrote: “The movie is too beautiful to be described as an ordeal, but it is sufficiently intense and unyielding that when it is over you may feel, along with awe, a measure of relief.”

Tarr, however, knew that this was exactly what distinguished his cinema from the forgettable pablum passing through the multiplexes: “Most films just tell the story: action, fact, action, fact... For me, this is poisoning the cinema because the art form is pictures written in time. It’s not only a question of length, it’s a question of heaviness. It’s a question of can you shake the people or not?”

Béla Tarr was born on July 21, 1955 in the city of Pécs, but raised in Budapest by parents steeped in theatre: his father designed scenery, while his mother worked as a prompter. He briefly found employment as a child actor after his mother took him to auditions for Hungarian state television; he was cast as the protagonist’s son in a TV adaptation of The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1965).

He had youthful hopes of becoming a philosopher, and initially regarded filmmaking as no more than a hobby, supported by the 8mm camera his parents gifted him for his fourteenth birthday. Plans to attend film school were scuppered after the authorities got wind of his short films, unvarnished non-fiction studies of the country’s poor and working-class. Yet these shorts also drew more sympathetic attention from the administrators of the Béla Balázs Studio, set up in 1959 to assist young artists, and they provided the funding for Tarr to make his feature debut.

Shot in six days, Family Nest (1979) was a claustrophobic example of socialist realism, its narrative enabling a scratchily fictionalised critique of prevailing housing policy. The film shared the Grand Prize at the Mannheim-Heidelberg Film Festival, and also won grudging respect from the authorities, who belatedly removed Tarr from the film-school blacklist. Tarr followed it with The Outsider (1981), set amongst Budapest’s hedonistic youth.

By Tarr’s own admission, these were in many ways reactive works, but they also demonstrated a growing commitment to pressing issues and marginalised contemporaries: “There were a lot of s**t things in the cinema, a lot of lies. We weren’t knocking at the door, we just beat it down. We were coming with some fresh, new, true, real things. We just wanted to show the reality – anti-movies."

His signature style began to coalesce while filming a TV adaptation of Macbeth (1982) that compressed the play’s action into two extended takes – a five-minute prologue, and a second that lasted just over an hour. Thereafter Tarr’s work became more expressively experimental. Almanac of Fall (1984), a rare diversion into colour, was a doomy character piece set within a tumbledown apartment block; Damnation (1988) was a rain-lashed noir entangling a singer and a barfly. (It received a belated UK release in the wake of Sátántangó.)

Tarr’s influence grew exponentially thereafter: by the first years of the new century, Gus van Sant was crediting him as inspiration for his funny-peculiar Matt Damon/Casey Affleck walkabout Gerry (2002). In 2012, he was elected president of the Association of Hungarian Film Artists; the following year, he opened his own guerrilla film school, known as film.factory, in Sarajevo, operating with the motto “no education, just liberation”. (He served as executive producer on Lamb (2021), a fabular horror directed by film.factory graduate Valdimar Jóhannsson.)

He was the subject of the documentary I Used To Be A Filmmaker (2016), and a 2017 retrospective, Till the End of the World, at Amsterdam’s EYE Filmmuseum. He made a comeback in 2019, overseeing the performance piece Missing People for Vienna’s Festwochen festival, made in response to a new Hungarian law that criminalised the homeless. According to Tarr, who elsewhere labelled the populist Orbán regime as “the shame of our country”, the piece reflected “capitalism and the inhuman system that we have. If you’re not productive, you’re out.”

The reissue of Sátántangó that year provided a rallying cause for those who’d long wished the cinema could develop beyond the usual blandishments and platitudes. As Tarr put it, in characteristically irascible fashion: “People just tell a f**ing story and we believe that something is happening with us. But nothing is happening with us. We are not really part of the story. We are just doing our time, and nobody gives a s**t about what time is doing to us. It’s a huge mistake. I just did it a different way.”

He is survived by Ágnes Hranitzky.

Béla Tarr, born July 21, 1955, died January 6, 2026.

Wednesday, 7 January 2026

Carnal knowledge: "Blue Velvet" at 40


"There are opportunities in life for gaining knowledge and experience."
- Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan)

Blue Velvet reaches forty at a moment when we've gone almost a year on Earth without the film's presiding spirit David Lynch. (A Lynch season, The Dreamer, is running at London's BFI Southbank.) In his 2018 memoir Room to Dream, the famously enigmatic director let slip two useful pieces of information with regard to his 1986 opus. Firstly, that it was inspired by childhood memories of seeing a distressed naked woman emerge from her house one night; secondly, that his intention was never to allow us to solve the mysteries of a film, of an incident, of a life - rather to set the viewer to engage with it, to mulling any clues over in our mind's eye. (This may be why Lynch remains so beloved of critics: his works were meant to be puzzled over and invited speculation, even if their ultimate meaning fell somewhere between subjective and entirely elusive. Isn't that just like life?) It seems as good a moment as any to mull over Blue Velvet itself, and to ask how one of the darkest - and, on first release, most polarising - of American films came to be endorsed as a modern classic. 

Four decades on, we might say that the first responses were so extreme because no-one had seen anything quite like it before, not even in Lynch's own filmography. 1977's Eraserhead, a confounding and alarming escapee from an experimental laboratory, was made to be observed underground, in rooms full of men and women who'd apparently never seen the light; 1980's The Elephant Man was a play for period respectability, a cautious attempt to come in from the margins; 1984's Dune was whatever Dune was. Up until that point, Lynch had, like many artists, given the impression of casting around - but 1986 would be the year he found his true voice, and how. The new film was a studio movie - preceded by the MGM logo and shot on Technicolor, with actual stars - but one filled with surrealist intent and sexualised violence. Deploying a conjurer's trick, Lynch didn't repel us but drew us even further in: into the undergrowth, into a mystery (who's missing the ear?), and then a nightmare wrapped up in a dream. One of the revelations of revisiting Blue Velvet after some time is how well-structured it is: like Jeffrey Beaumont, we're forever left wanting to know and see more, often despite our own better instincts. The mystery (and the kink) envelops; it wraps around and embraces us like fog, quicksand or, indeed, velvet itself. No wonder some shouted warnings, and tried to resist.

If there's a moral here, it's surely conservative-leaning, a riff on how in certain circumstances curiosity really can kill the cat. But Lynch's methodology is radical and remains jolting. I genuinely believe Blue Velvet owes an artistic debt of some kind to all those peepers-slash-sex pests we were meant to identify with in early 1980s teen movies - those gurgling bros in Porky's and Screwballs and what-have-you, brought here to some form of creative justice. After hiding in the heroine's closet, Jeffrey is busted and himself stripped at knifepoint; Isabella Rossellini's Dorothy turns him into a casting-couch ingenue. And a substantial part of the film's consciousness is occupied with how easily bored young men, particularly those in small towns like Lumberton, can be misdirected in matters of the opposite sex. Jeffrey is persistently steered towards troubling carnal knowledge: that Dorothy has lovers that treat her rough and degrade her, and - what's more - that she appears to enjoy (at least some of) it, judging from the lipstick-smeared smile on her face. Some part of Blue Velvet corresponds to that fraught period in a young man's sexual development where he realises women aren't the angels he may have imagined or envisioned them as: it's there when Jeffrey asks Dorothy whether she's all right, and she replies "you know I'm not".

The vision of normal American life as dream/nightmare is so subtly insidious that when Lynch squeezes in a literal dream sequence early on - in the wake of Jeffrey witnessing Dorothy's first assault by Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) - that it now comes off as somewhat hokey and goofy, as if he'd watched a Wes Craven movie the night before and taken notes. He'd soon sharpen that up, of course, but what's also interesting about revisiting Blue Velvet is spotting how close Lynch still was to the American mainstream of the mid-1980s: the "joyride" Frank takes Jeffrey on is Scorsese's After Hours, pushed to the nth degree. The mania Scorsese could only attain and sustain on coke is just there in Lynch's head, no substance stronger than caffeine required. I think there are also scenes and places that let slip a certain naivety on Lynch's part: there's surely too much preamble going into the "In Dreams" sequence, and then not enough of "In Dreams" itself, cut short just as it's flourishing into for-the-ages cinema. (Lynch's later projects allowed such musical numbers to play out in full.) It may be heresy to say this at this stage, but Blue Velvet could arguably do with less Hopper and more Dean Stockwell, less brute force and more sly finesse - but then there are a lot more tiresome Frank Booths at large nowadays, and when you're young, it's easy to be swayed by big barrelling brutes with towering reputations.

What's as clear as the night sky, though, is Lynch's understanding that depravity, or the depraved indifference that normality represents in Lumberton, is the American default; and that goodness is all but a marginal activity, something niche and rare, practiced by young dreamers whispering in diners. This really would have been a jolting proposition in Reagan's America, waving its flags and its Holy Books even as it conspired to let AIDS and crack cocaine ravage certain communities; given everything we know, it plays very differently in 2026, where the normal is normally terrible. Lynch, however, holds out his own kind of hope. In the final reels, the forbidden fruit harvested amid earlier trespasses gets Jeffrey somewhere: now this once clueless young man knows exactly where to hide in Dorothy Vallens' apartment when trouble comes calling. (Is there any greater sense of place in 1980s cinema than there is in the Vallens apartment, with its blood-red carpets that look to be inviting trouble?) Goodness triumphs over evil for now; this time round, I found the reappearance of the robin, who now invites reading as Lynch himself, overwhelmingly moving. The whole remains a potent object to study in the dark, worthy of renewed, attentive investigation; for a chastening Reagan-era double-bill, pair Blue Velvet with the same year's River's Edge: a little less Hopper, a bit more undergrowth, a similar smalltown eeriness, from a director (Tim Hunter) who was himself on the path to Twin Peaks.

Blue Velvet is now playing in selected cinemas, and available to stream via Netflix and the BBC iPlayer; it will also be available to stream via MUBI from January 15.

American hustle: "Marty Supreme"


2025 will go down as the year in which, disregarding all previous instincts, the Safdie brothers embraced the happy ending and won themselves a whole new audience. In last October's The Smashing Machine, Benny Safdie observed a punchdrunk rope-a-doper as - against his previous instincts - he negotiated a soft landing for himself; the only trouble was that the film's box-office numbers proved softer still. Launched on a wave of hype over Christmas, Marty Supreme - directed by Josh Safdie from a script he wrote with Ronald Bronstein - is the tale of a dreamer and schemer who makes things happen and wins big. As with The Smashing Machine, it's a sports biopic in the leftfield, Coen brothers sense, following the ever-driven Marty Mauser (Timothée Chalamet) - a young table tennis whizz modelled on the real-life Marty Reisman - as he progresses from kid to mensch and from nobody to star in the immediate post-War years. Yet as ever with all things Safdie, the destination proves secondary to the rattling journey. Much as the protagonists of Good Time and Uncut Gems were pushed to extremes - in those cases, to no good end - Marty Mauser will be tested, put through the ringer, taken down a peg or two, tossed out with the trash, chased from pillar to post, tugged hither and thither, sent halfway around the world, halfway insane and to hell and back; even when he finally catches a break and gets a night off from this relentless, nerve-shredding grind, he finds himself obliged to endure a Broadway show in its entirety. This is not a film you would want to experience in 4DX, unless you particularly sought to emerge shaking like a jackhammer; it also makes for an altogether oddball awards contender. At various points, Safdie's film resembles The Brutalist replayed as farce, Cassavetes dragged backwards through a hedge and into the multiplex, and a Marvel movie fished from a municipal dump, engineered as it has been towards the generation of pummelling setpieces and stunts. What's inarguable is that Marty Supreme is a genuine motion picture. Of what calibre, we shall see.

Before this 150-minute film exhausts you into clinging to its coattails and just seeing where it's heading, you may be given pause to consider what its slender, perverse, idiosyncratic fable means to represent. On some level, Marty Supreme is Safdie shooting for the respectability that was finally beyond the much-touted Uncut Gems, a stress test that may actually have finished off Academy voters with fainter hearts. This, by contrast, is a begrimed period drama, opening amid the mercantile New York of the early 1950s and possibly drawing on the memories of various Safdie and Bronstein elders; Marty, who begins the film as a lowly salesman in the city's most chaotic shoe shop, stands for all those Jewish scrappers who emerged from the shadow of WW2 to reorder and reinvent American society. (Those early scenes seem to flow out of brother Benny's acting gig in Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, the events of which recur in conversation here.) Might Marty's rise to prominence also be a lauded writer-director's mid-career reflection on what he too has been through to arrive at this point: the getting of wisdom, the making of deals and compromises, covering ground with holes in your shoes and pockets, the unlikely successes, the crushing failures, the constant risk of abject humiliation? The Safdies have so far treated filmmaking as a kind of extreme sport: moving beyond the genteel suburban skateboarding of the more moneyed Spike Jonze/Mike Mills generation, they've instead pushed for the thrills and spills traditionally associated with parkour, encouraging their desperate protagonists to run across the rooftops in pursuit of what they want, and sending a similarly breathless camera after them. The dangers are inbuilt, and self-reflexive: Good Time was people trying to get away with something before the cops arrive, while the events of Uncut Gems were a bet the filmmakers were placing on their own raggedly athletic technique. In Safdieland, everything's a gamble; everything's a flutter and a-flutter.

The new film looks and feels like an attempt to do everything the brothers have done before, only singlehandedly and on a far grander scale. Marty's ambition matches his creators' ambition, and indeed the ambition of the upwardly mobile boutique studio (A24) whose logo adorns all the cheques. "Dream big" is both the film's slogan and the production's watchwords; Safdie's clinging to that old adage "go broke or go home", while addending that arms and legs can also be broken. So we get stars: new money in Chalamet, now a draw in himself, and the more seasoned currency of Gwyneth Paltrow, WASPily elegant as the faded Hollywood star Marty pursues and - in another unlikely triumph - woos. Yet A24 allow a certain artistic continuity to persist that you sense would be beyond the pale at any bigger studio. The bulk of the HR budget has gone on supporting players with asymmetrical faces, gapped teeth, milk-bottle specs, and raspy or wheezy voices; part of Safdie's project has apparently been to round up the most abrasive performers and personalities of his lifetime (Fran Drescher, Sandra Bernhard, Penn Jillette, Abel Ferrara, Odessa A'Zion) and stick them all in the same two-and-a-half-hour grouchfest. In flushing out the casting rooms and trawling the backalleys and after-hours bars of American culture, he's managed to scuzz up, uglify and reroute (or otherwise complicate) the period drama: to Safdiefy it, if we're giving the process a name. That's not a bad idea on which to found a movie, and it more often than not pays off during Marty Supreme's first two-thirds: cramming so much fractious life into each shot, setting these actors to rub up against the confines of each set-up and every frame, allows this slight story to expand a little before our eyes. (Safdie loves a straggler, and he loves leaving in straggly adlibs and other bits of on-set business that neater, tidier films would redact: that's why it runs 150 minutes.)

At the film's centre, though, there bounces a human ping-pong ball: someone who can't possibly stand for anything much, because he won't sit still for a moment. Nothing here caused me to discard my working theory that Timmy Caramel will only ever be effective when cast as brats, dicks, shits or twits (his heelturn in Lady Bird being the highpoint so far). The good news is that Marty Mauser is all of the above, and a grifter and tryhard besides: the movie makes sense of its own promotional campaign and how its leading man has ended up dating Kylie Jenner. Chalamet leans into the brattishness: Marty talks back to his ma, mouths off to everybody else, and says things that would very likely get a public figure cancelled today. Safdie's screenfilling close-ups of the actor, meanwhile, reveal dead eyes, pitted skin, a bumfluff moustache: he's been Safdiefied, too, as if this camera were its own, unflattering kind of Instagram filter. There's something very funny about Marty Mauser's near-complete lack of humour - if he does stand for something, it's that pure, untrammelled ambition you see in those who'd do anything to reach the top of their chosen field - and you can't take your eyes off him, if only to ensure this twerp isn't making off with your wallet. He's also, finally, a pretty hollow creation: slice him in two and you'd find no psychological baggage and just the one needling note, played with skill up until the point a young star can no longer sustain it. (It's as much an endurance test for Chalamet as it is for us.) In this respect, Marty Mauser is not unlike Marty Supreme: the longer it ran on, the more I felt Safdie coming to rely on his counterintuitive Eighties soundtrack (Tears for Fears, Alphaville, PiL: musical abrasion, rubbing history up the wrong way) to lend the action whatever warmth and depth of feeling it has. Like its protagonist - and like many other Safdie movies - Marty Supreme is finally a headache and a pain in the arse; it falls somewhere between a lot, too much and not nearly enough, hoping all this motion can foster the illusion of substance and profundity. It's experiential to the point of not really having a tale to tell - it's another of 2025's one-battle-after-another movies - and I cannot imagine a less gentle start to the New Year; yet I can't deny this is a movie, and more movie than most. In a way Marty Mauser, hustler supreme, would doubtless appreciate, Safdie sure gives us our money's worth - but also perhaps a bellyful.

Marty Supreme is now playing in cinemas nationwide.