Friday, 28 June 2019

Taking the high woad: "Robert the Bruce"


The bulky character actor Angus Macfadyen has worked consistently over the past three decades, on screens both big and small: he played Richard Burton to Sherilyn Fenn's Liz Taylor in a post-Twin Peaks TV movie, became Peter Lawford in HBO's The Rat Pack, and Orson Welles for Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock. Arguably his highest profile role, however, remains that of Robert the Bruce in Mel Gibson's Braveheart, that multiple Oscar-winner that isn't much watched nowadays (hard to schedule a three-hour movie from ye olden days of 1995 in TV primetime, doubly so when its creative figurehead has done so much to vilify himself) yet which persists in informing our Game of Thrones-y moment. Now Macfadyen has co-authored the passion project Robert the Bruce, which - in a vaguely Trumpist bit of spin - he insists isn't a Braveheart sequel, even though the film takes place chronologically after William Wallace's death, and finds its writer-star once more playing the Bruce. Perhaps this is a considered tactic, designed to stave off either copyright lawsuits or direct critical comparisons. An indie project such as this was never going to attract a Fox budget or much in the way of star power, and the lack of Gibson's wild-eyed bloodlust comes to feel as much a failure of nerve as it is a virtue. Robert the Bruce is not unhandsome, but it falls too easily into the middle of that "men with beards trot round forests" subgenre primarily enjoyed by men with beards who don't get out as much. It's not so much mythic as anecdotal, and only ever as stirring as footnotes tend to be.

There are isolated flickers of interest. Macfadyen, co-writer Eric Belgau and the Australian director Richard Gray have realised this is a pointed moment to revisit a battle for (or to escape) a union with Scotland's neighbours to the south, and so the script serves as a tentative inquiry into the type of leader Highlanders might want to rally them towards independent rule: the conclusion would appear to be robust without being bellicose, of the people, and not populist. (Just as Robert learnt from Wallace's passing, so too Macfadyen may have taken a lesson or two from Gibson's flameout.) Partly to keep the beardiness in check, but also partly for thematic reasons, a high percentage of the tale is told by a peasant woman to her son, framing the Bruce as the kind of legend passed down from one generation to the next, and involved in a conflict that still reverberates today: you can only imagine Nicola Sturgeon's heart swelling upon hearing mother tell son "One day, we will all be free." (Looking at the toxic dead weight Scotland presently finds itself shackled to, you cannae blame her.) Yet while that framing device may have seemed inspired when Macfadyen was sitting at the laptop - not least because it covers several holes more money might have filled - it gives the action a weirdly passive, preordained quality when translated to the screen: in this telling, the story simply can't seize us by the throat, as Wallace's story did.

For a film titled Robert the Bruce, there's also not all that much Robert the Bruce: he's offscreen for at least an hour, holed up in exile with that spider (a spindly cameo from an uncredited arachnid), waiting for the threat levels to deescalate; much of the two-hour running time is therefore given over to the variously hirsute men roaming around snowbound woodland (in reality, the forests of, ahem, Montana) in search of him. Macfadyen, whose oratorical skills were a big part of his being cast as Welles, repurposes the character as a strong, silent type, holding firm in the midst of a constitutional crisis - exactly the kind of leader the Scottish people could do with right now - but his biding of time would only be interesting cinematically if the supporting parts were more richly drawn: a too-brief cameo from Jared Harris as thin-lipped appeaser John Comyn is as good as it gets on that front. There are advantages to the circumspect approach - during the quieter moments, you can almost hear history books being picked up rather than, say, tossed on a bonfire by a ululating Antipodean - and the film certainly displays greater consistency than Outlaw/King, David Mackenzie's compromised Netflix venture from last year. Yet it's really no more than consistently ordinary, never quite summoning the dramatic force to suggest why, even with the Union in the state it now is, it might be necessary, let alone essential.

Robert the Bruce opens in selected cinemas from today.

Thursday, 27 June 2019

Guardians of the cutlery: "Toy Story 4"


The more Pixar pick up their toys at moments of crisis, the more those toys resemble therapy dolls or comforters, fixed points of security in an increasingly unstable universe. The studio's animators first turned back this way in the late Noughties, as the company was pivoting to Cars and Planes and watching the wheels come off their spotless creative track record; they do so again at the end of whatever we're calling this decade, which saw John Lasseter being placed on judicious leave and 2015's Inside Out burning through the bulk of the Pixar brains trust's better ideas. (It wouldn't surprise me if we were to see The Good Dinosaur 2 at some stage, but we surely cannot hold out much hope for its prospects.) In the years between Toy Story 3 and this week's Toy Story 4, Woody, Buzz and co. have been sent out to sing for their supper in a series of made-for-TV shorts and corporate ad campaigns, demonstrating once again that what begins as close-to-the-cutting-edge art generally winds up inhabiting the realm of commerce. As my Guardian colleague Peter Bradshaw observed in his review, these toys should by rights be looking a whole lot more careworn than they do in Toy Story 4: Andy's dog Buster aged more between Toy Story and Toy Story 3 than any of the lead playthings have in 25 years - but then maybe what they're ultimately peddling is the Disney fantasy of eternal youth and innocence.

Those spin-offs and footnotes have been fun, while seeming overburdened with residual characters. Toy Story 3 gained from hitting every last emotional beat of its closing transitional phase, which described the handing over of these childish things; the tears that sequence coaxed helped us forget what had gone before it, which often felt penned-in and cluttered, lacking the light, space and movement of its more dynamic predecessors, where the technology wasn't quite there to fill every inch of every frame. The first two movies were the Goldilocks' porridge of late 20th century cinema: not too many ideas, not too few, just right. In Toy Story 3, you felt a franchise getting too considered for its own good. The fourth film returns us to basics, and manages to be appreciably smart about it, if not perhaps dazzlingly so. There are still too many toys in this box - series veterans Rex and Hamm barely get a close-up between them - but we open on a clearout that separates Woody (voiced, again, by Tom Hanks) from his beloved Bo Peep (Annie Potts), and there's a new arrival whose basicness forces toys and animators alike into a rethink. At kindergarten, the toys' new owner Bonnie creates Forky, a spork with pipe-cleaner arms and glue-on googly eyes whose guileless after-hours personality is such that he's convinced he's no more than trash, and thus determined to throw himself into the nearest available bin. Forky (gurgled by Veep's Tony Hale) is both a typically funny Pixar idea - a toy who senses he's so disposable he voluntarily pitches himself towards oblivion - and one with obvious existential undertones: he needs rescuing and redirecting, like a toddler crawling with fingers headed for an electrical socket. Born of trash yet bound for better, he's also Pixar's doodled contribution to the nature-versus-nurture debate.

I felt I was back in safe hands around the time of the scene that finds Woody and Forky walking hand-in-hand along the the hard shoulder of a deserted freeway: it's quiet and slow, a simple moment of (father-son?) connection of the kind a digimation of the Wonder Park or Secret Life of Pets school would unfailingly hustle past. Furthermore, the sequence opens up the frame, and the series entire: we're on the road now, heading towards new horizons. The whole of Toy Story 4 is one of those outward-bound setpieces of which there were five or six in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, back when these films were packed with wonders. Forky strays into the clutches of a defective doll, Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), and her army of antique-shop ventriloquist's dummies; Woody and co. have to get him back. En route, the anthropomorphism that has converted pixels into plastic and then personalities with apparent feelings sets us to wondering whether there isn't something a little old-school Disney about the implied link between physical defectiveness and villainy (the idea is that, unlike the heteronormative Woody and Bo Peep, Gabby is childless, therefore bitter), yet there is something so very Pixar in the way this antagonist is herself finally redeemed. The movie turns out to be a rescue mission for every last one of its characters, and perhaps the franchise entire, not that it really needed it. No spork left behind.

If the toys haven't aged, the four films will stand as their own record of changing times in modern Hollywood. The voice cast, for one, is notably more diverse than it was for the first Toy Story, with Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key stepping up to provide the supporting schtick as a pair of fairground gonks. There's a vastly more proactive role for Bo Peep, who seems to have replaced poor old Buzz Lightyear as Woody's primary sparring partner. (May the Lord spare us the whiny online petitions.) And it makes instinctive sense that Woody and Bo Peep - the sheriff and the shepherdess - should have ended up as something akin to parents, or at least adoptive guardians, for the five-year-olds who sat saucer-eyed before the first Toy Story in 1995 will now be pushing thirty, and perhaps parents to five-year-olds of their own. This wouldn't be the first Disney property to operate according to some circle of life. What's been lost over the four films is that innocence our dewier movie ideas exude. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 sprung fresh from creatives we watched having immense fun establishing and expanding the boundaries of a new cinematic medium; traces of that vicarious viewing pleasure remain in the third and fourth instalments, but now we're watching those same creatives racking their brains as to how to continue having fun in that medium. The exuberant element of play has been replaced by exertion, plain old work.

Toy Story 4 is at least good, committed, largely diverting work. The grand finale offsets its vaguely familiar funfair setting against such amusing flourishes as having Kristen Schaal (as triceratops Trixie) voice a satnav; the very last line, tucked away amid the closing credits, gets to the heart of what this franchise has been about all along, and would be a perfect note to conclude on, if indeed this is meant as a conclusion. (Again, as with Toy Story 3, you sense Pixar working hard to come up with an ending that might redeem some of the so-so material that has preceded it: you leave the cinema on a wistful high, which wouldn't be the case if you'd left after an hour or half-hour.) It remains the curse of digimation that computer processing technology rapidly outpaced the analogue business of coming up with a worthwhile idea, turning that into an engaging story, and then setting that out in a script; it's why we've all sat through so many half-term screenfillers churned out without a trace of wit or invention, Forky-films sorely lacking the abundant, gifted writing staff who've succeeded in preventing Toy Story 4 from chucking itself in the bin. (Eight scribes are credited here, including Lasseter, Finding Nemo's Andrew Stanton, The Office's Rashida Jones and her Celeste and Jesse Forever collaborator Will McCormack.) I enjoyed Toy Story 4, but I can't help but think the one line the animators returning to this toybox responded to most keenly was Woody's response when asked why he's going the extra mile for Forky: "Because I don't have anything else to do."

Toy Story 4 is now playing in cinemas nationwide.

Tuesday, 25 June 2019

On demand: "Die Tomorrow"


Die Tomorrow is another of those lyrical, ever-so-slightly-mysterious imaginings the Thai film industry now seems to specialise in, reaching as it does for a spiritual dimension than alters our perception of what a film can be. The logline would be A Short Film About Dying: it's a 75-minute patchwork (shroud might be the right word) stitched together from snippets of drama and documentary, photographs and any other mementos mori the writer-director Nawapol Thamrongrattanarit could get his hands on over the five years he spent assembling it. (In that time, his earlier features 36 and Mary is Happy, Mary is Happy received UK theatrical releases.) Thus vérité footage of children being questioned on their perceptions of death sits side-by-side with dramatisations of the circumstances leading up to banal, everyday demises, an interview with a 102-year-old man who's outlived his wife and children alike ("I don't know how I've lived this long... Maybe it's a genetic thing, maybe it's some kind of error") and footage of the Challenger disaster. The blurring of fact with fiction is such that a late vignette that presents us with a daughter caring for her ailing father first strikes the eye as ominously close to the real thing, real suffering; only an elegant camera shift, pulling us away from this tableau as the man passes from this world to the next, reassures us that it has, in fact, been staged - yet Thamrongrattanarit seems to be asking why we need that reassurance in the first place. After thousands of years of it, why are we so scared to look death in the eye, or give it the time of day?

This filmmaker is most fascinated by death's everyday aspect. Though we hear (pardon the pun) passing talk of accidents involving planes and motorbikes, these aren't the spectacular ends the Final Destination series has trafficked in, rather a part of normal life, something with which his subjects, real and fictional, have to come to terms and make their peace. In an especially effective formal flourish, a stopwatch runs in the top left hand corner of the frame, counting not just how long the movie has been going for, but also how many people will have died worldwide in that time. (At an estimated 170,000 per day, it works out around 120dpm, or deaths per minute.) A ticking soundtrack makes audible the sand passing through the hourglass; the reduced aspect ratio Thamrongrattanarit shoots in at several places - no wider than that of an iPhone in portrait mode - suggests the darkness closing in on his characters from both sides. Enjoy yourself, the film advises: it's later than you think.

Can we enjoy Die Tomorrow? Given the morbid subject matter, it's obviously not a barrel of laughs, but it would be hard not to take something memorable away from it, as one would from a funeral. It could just be a mood: the rueful melancholy - a sense of what's been lost - that follows from the punchline to each of the film's dramatised segments: a shot of the same room in which characters have just been seen communing, now vacated of all life. It could be an understanding of death as the great leveller, or alternatively a cosmic injustice: take the sequence in which a man says his farewells to his hospital-bound girlfriend to catch a flight destined to go down with all hands lost. It could even be factual: you'll have the chance to pore over a chart of the ten most popular methods of suicide, complete with a relative index of agony calculated on the time it would take to die. Elsewhere, the non-activity and deliberately banal conversation of Thamrongrattanarit's characters - the time they conspicuously let slip through their fingers - leaves space for reflection and rumination over our own proximity to the grave. It risks the response "life's too short for this", naturally, but Die Tomorrow proves quietly profound, sad in an instructive way: a glimpse into the great beyond, and of the forces that govern our existence (and non-existence), it is, much like life itself, fragile, precious, and all over before you can really get a handle on it.

Die Tomorrow is currently previewing on MUBI UK, ahead of its theatrical release on July 26.

Friday, 21 June 2019

For what it's worth...



Top Ten Films at the UK Box Office 
for the weekend of June 14-16, 2019:

1 (1) Aladdin (PG)

2 (new) Men in Black International (12A)
3 (3) Rocketman (15) ***
4 (4) The Secret Life of Pets 2 (U)
5 (2) X-Men: Dark Phoenix (12A)
6 (6) Godzilla: King of the Monsters (12A)
7 (9) John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (15) ***
8 (8) Casino Royale - Secret Cinema (12A)
9 (new) Diego Maradona (12A)
10 (10) Pokemon Detective Pikachu (PG) 

(source: BFI)

My top five: 
1. Kind Hearts & Coronets

2. Mari
3. A Season in France
4. Toy Story 4
5. Amin


Home entertainment Top Ten (DVD/Blu-Ray/Download): 

1 (4) 
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (PG)
2 (1) Stan & Ollie (PG) ***
3 (3) Bohemian Rhapsody (12)
4 (new) Instant Family (12) ***
5 (21) Green Book (12) **
6 (2) The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (U) ***
7 (new) Liam Gallagher: As It Was (15) ***
8 (5) The Mule (15)
9 (new) How to Train Your Dragon Triple Pack (PG)
10 (8) Aquaman (12)

(source: officialcharts.com)

My top five: 
1. If Beale Street Could Talk

2. Boy Erased
3. Liam Gallagher: As It Was
4. A Private War
5. Can You Ever Forgive Me?


Top five films on terrestrial TV:
1. Toy Story 2 [above] (Saturday, BBC1, 5pm)
2. The Nice Guys (Saturday, ITV, 10.45pm)
3. The Devil Wears Prada (Sunday, C4, 2.25pm)
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Sunday, ITV, 4.50pm)
5. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (Sunday, ITV, 2.15pm)

"Mari" (Guardian 21/06/19)


Mari ****
Dir: Georgia Parris. With: Bobbi Jene Smith, Madeleine Worrall, Phoebe Nicholls, Peter Singh. 94 mins. Cert: 12A

The latest triumph from Film London’s Microwave scheme – the low-budget production boost that has given us such worthwhile investments as Hong Khaou’s Lilting and Eran Creevy’s Shifty – is an engrossing close-up study of a thirtysomething woman caught between two worlds, and two states of being. The American choreographer Bobbi Jene Smith plays Charlotte, a principal in a contemporary dance troupe whose preparations for a major show are dealt two blows in quick succession. First comes a positive pregnancy test, and the realisation the body with which she so forcefully expresses herself may shortly undergo radical change; next, there’s a call from her family, gathering round the hospital bed of her dying grandmother. A rehearsal-room prologue has already established Charlotte’s uncommon physical flexibility. What follows is a test of mental and emotional adaptability.

Writer-director Georgia Parris’s fascination resides in those tensions that exist in certain bohemian-leaning families, rarely addressed head-on, yet always present in quieter rooms; Joanna Hogg appears to be one influence here. Judicious enough to present us with both sides of this situation, the filmmaker casts supremely sympathetic actresses – Phoebe Nicholls and Madeleine Worrall – as Charlotte’s mum and sister, striving to hold their clan together while insisting that, whatever else they are, dance recitals aren’t quite life and death. Smith herself keeps shifting our responses, much as Charlotte pushes and pulls her troupe. This performer’s nervous vibration makes her solo scenes more immediately compelling than the hospital interactions, yet we understand how her relentless intensity might well drive mum and sis to look for jollifying llama memes.

A few scenes around gran’s cottage risk slipping into that airlessness that dogs Hogg’s work; light and space may well come naturally with a bigger budget. Nevertheless, Parris is way ahead of the game in her framing choices and sound design, and stirringly adventurous in her incorporation of dance into the rigid, humdrum everyday. One dream sequence ranks among the boldest imaginative leaps in recent British cinema, and there’s something so smart in the use of a floor exercise to comment on the unfolding drama of a fiercely self-sufficient woman having to feel her way through the complex business of dependency. If you enjoyed Madeline’s Madeline despite its indie quirks, Parris’s carefully weighted debut may prove just the leftfield ticket: there’s a lot of promise here, but equally a startling level of achievement.

Mari opens in selected cinemas from today, and is available to stream via Curzon Home Cinema and the BFI Player. 

"Hero" (Guardian 21/06/19)


Hero ***
Dir: Frances-Anne Solomon. With: Nickolai Salcedo, Pippa Nixon, Joseph Marcell, Fraser James. 111 mins. Cert: 12A

Released to mark Windrush Day, this engaged drama-documentary pays tribute to Ulric Cross, the Trinidadian who became the most decorated of the RAF’s West Indian recruits during WW2, then a producer-presenter with the BBC, then a go-between in several African struggles against imperialism. From the off, writer-director Frances-Anne Solomon strikes a wistful note, wavering between celebration of an extraordinary existence and marked regret around the aims unachieved in that lifetime: footage of the actual, ailing Cross prompts daughter Nicola to remark “it’s just so silly that it takes some dying” to have winkled these details out. As Britain re-examines where it stands in relation to the Windrush arrivals – and those who’ve disembarked behind them – it’s timely viewing, to say the least, though it’s finally an even bigger picture than that suggests.

Solomon’s reconstructions bear witness to a modest budget, but they raise complicated questions of identity that a better furnished period drama might stifle among its scatter cushions. An RAF application form prompts reflection on whether Caribbean fliers feel more African or European in their outlook; in post-War London, Cross (the quietly commanding Nickolai Salcedo) lives a dual life, meeting with such thinkers as CLR James and George Padmore, yet hiding their words from his white British sweetheart Anna (Pippa Nixon). He makes for an atypical biopic subject, more analyst than man of action, his tale generating perceptions, not thunderous setpieces. Evidently, Cross saw Britain backsliding into complacency after vanquishing the Nazis; a further tragedy is how Africa, which Cross viewed as a possible promised land, came to be riven with murderous uncertainty.

Those African travels – encompassing a plot to smuggle Padmore’s papers out of Ghana – allows Hero to flirt with commercial thriller territory, but it’s largely a film of meetings and discussions, intuiting that backroom talk most often alters the course of our lives. Solomon’s clever marshalling of archive footage gives it scope, repositioning Cross in the middle of a monochrome world only reluctantly converting to Kodachrome and Technicolor. Inevitably we see Lord Kitchener, cuddly enough to have been integrated into the Paddington universe; more shameful is the unveiling of a “Keep Britain White” banner in Trafalgar Square, forcing the protagonist into a decision presumably now facing many foreign nationals. It gets episodic late on, yet remains stimulating and provocative – filmed history that means to prompt debate, rather than light matinee snoozing.

Hero opens in selected cinemas from today. 

On demand: "Piercing"


Nicolas Pesce is the young American writer-director who, with help from chums Sean Durkin (Martha Marcy May Marlene) and Antônio Campos (Afterschool), made 2016's The Eyes of My Mother, a monochrome horror nightmare that had a certain formal rigour to commend it, but (as with many of the films to have emerged from the Durkin-Campos school) precious little blood running through its veins. (Had you plunged a knife into it, the film would have leaked formaldehyde and film theory.) Pesce's all-colour follow-up Piercing wears its quotation marks even more conspicuously, in part to mitigate against the horrendousness of the premise it yanks from Ryū Murakami's short story. After a retro "Our Feature Presentation" insert, and 70s-throwback opening credits (over gorgeous miniature work), we're sequestered for more or less the duration in a shag-carpeted hotel room to which morally rotten young father Reed (Christopher Abbott) - think Patrick Bateman with an extra five-to-ten years on him - has summoned sex worker Jackie (Mia Wasikowska) for the express purpose of tying her up and doing very bad things to her with an ice pick. To some extent, you can rest easy. It becomes very quickly clear that our damsel-in-potential-distress isn't just going to lie there and take it; equally, that there's nothing this whackjob dude can do that his intended victim isn't prepared to do to herself first. Nevertheless, it remains a little over an hour of nasty shocks: a pointed, spiky lesson on the subject of that we can and cannot control, up to and including the opposite sex.

Shooting on obvious sets leaves Piercing rather more secure in its tonal variations than its predecessor. There's a heavily ironised self-referentiality to this theatre of cruelty - as the sex worker gasps at one point, "it was like being in a movie, or the leading actress in some big romantic scene" - which keeps disconcerting reminders of reality at arm's length. Within this fascinatingly safe unsafe space, the actors are allowed to veer towards strange extremes, and to do so without entirely alienating any squares and normies looking on. Abbott - who quit HBO's Girls to do such remarkable work in 2015's James White - seems constantly to be squirming with the effort of keeping something unfathomably dark within; he's an actor of infinite clenches. Wasikowska, meanwhile, is busy leading us further down the rabbit hole than she ever did for Tim Burton, pushing her natural spaciness into bold new territory. This working girl's a walking curveball, and the best (and most reassuring) gag in the movie is that Abbott's brooding wretch and this airy blonde flibbertigibbet just aren't on one another's wavelengths; there can be no acceptance of death, because neither would-be killer nor prospective victim are on the same page (and if they are, they're speaking in incompatible tongues). The performances are so vividly insistent on this point that Pesce barely needs the splitscreen effect he reaches for at one crucial juncture: these two don't fit together, however the narrative and visuals configure them.

We might wonder whether Piercing stands as anything more than a joke, a Dahlian tale of the unexpected. We might also wonder whether, in Pesce, we have another Tarantino on our hands, unable to handle a single drop of sincere emotion, or deal with characters who don't seem to have walked out of some sleazy B-movie. (We might even wonder whether Pesce might be one of those indie bros who still takes that as a compliment.) Somewhere in the depths of Piercing - or in what passes for depth in Piercing - there lurks a very zeitgeisty idea about trauma, and the ways in which we come to terms with it. (That, I suspect, comes from Murakami's source material, rather than Pesce's treatment.) Yet while Pesce is prepared to push his violence to extremes, he's not ready to reach that emotionally deep just yet. Instead, he sniggers around this tale, and has a good deal of fun with it: the film rattles by inside 75 minutes (not, one should in fairness note, a Tarantinoid trait), refusing to let us off this deranged train of thought once we've committed to it, and thereafter tying us in knots that are both authentically twisted and generally fucked-up. It is, at bottom, nifty proof of that weird capacity the cinema retains for circumventing all our usual response patterns, and making us thrill to behaviour we'd find horrifying in broad daylight. If you're watching with polite company, you may want to have yourself a safe word ready.

Piercing is now streaming via Netflix.