Music On My Mind

Here's the thing; good music, a good song, is a living thing. It is an emotional organism that breathes and changes over time, it grows as you do and becomes something else entirely. It informs your life with meaning and in turn you bring something new to it with every passing day. Bad music is a pallid, mediocre, unconvincing waxy mannequin, an imitation of passion. It has no life or truth, merely a sad facade of emotionless corporate skin.

To recognise this distinction is to open yourself to what I consider the greatest joy in life.

Anyway, here are some songs that have been on my mind of late.

Is This Love - Bob Marley

Here is a man who can bring joy to your soul without fail. His music shimmers with beauty and bounces with life. Is This Love is love made music, all warmth and honesty. It's all good, friends.

The Jungle Line - Joni Mitchell

The greatest artist of the 20th Century, Joni Mitchell will take you places within yourself you didn't know existed. This song is unique in her vast catalogue in almost every way; a strange and wonderful piece that twists and writhes its way into one's mind.

Come On Up to the House - Tom Waits

I'm impossibly old, drunk, a little sad and I want my friends to raise hell with me just one more time. That's how I feel when I hear this song. One day, when I am impossibly old and my close of days arrives, Tom Waits' voice is the one I will hear. He touches my heart like no other.

Lullaby - Jacobean Ruff

This is indeed my band's song and me on the piano, but hopefully this won't come off as arrogant. It had a tortuous birth but finally came out how I wanted it to but it was not complete until Jed and Sophie ( my fantastic bandmates ) added their vocals to the end of the song. It really makes me wonder how musicians like McCartney can seem to enjoy working alone without another artist's input. Anyhow, Jed and Sophie's vocals on this song make me cry without fail. I love music.


https://soundcloud.com/jacobeanruff/lullaby

A look... Under the Skin

THIS IS A FULL, FRANK AND THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF THE FILM IN ITS ENTIRETY, SO THERE WILL BE PLOT DISCUSSION AND SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

I mean no disrespect to the film's special effects when I say that  the most alien and disorienting parts of  Under the Skin are the shots of ordinary Glasgow streets packed with ordinary citizens. We are so accustomed to seeing on screen even the most ordinary of settings through a movie gloss, so used to artifice and misdirection, that to see a rainy city for what it is just looks weird. Really weird. Of course, Scarlett Johansson herself plays a big part in this.

Seeing her walk past a BHS and a Greggs, watching women putting on makeup in Debenhams is incredibly bizarre.This is a major factor in the success of the film, and it continues to work throughout. Of particular note are the scenes where she rides a bus, or sits in the most painfully ordinary house, watching television with a plate of beans on toast before her. She is magnificent in her gestures and expressions, and transcendent when allowing us to simply observe her.

Contrary to the film's title, we spend a lot of time looking at skin, and more broadly, at the facades humans erect around their everyday lives. The strange ritual of applying makeup, or buying clothes or watching television or dancing are shown onscreen for what feels like the first time. Johansson herself is often shown looking from behind things, even the poster does this, her face behind a cloud of stars. We see her through trees, through filthy glass , even through memories shown onscreen. Indeed, the pivotal moment where she decides to free a man she has taken pity on occurs after a very long shot of her staring into a filthy mirror.

Johansson is naked a lot in the film, as are the various men she preys on. The nudity isn't just for a moment either, in fact at one point she stands for a long time examining her body in a mirror. There is nothing erotic about this scene, not to me at least, she seems to be literally examining the body she is inhabiting. Testing it out and learning how to use it.

There is very little that I find erotic in the film. She is Scarlett Johansson and she is playing the role of seductress so there is necessarily something more than a little sexy in it, but especially on second viewing I found myself more frightened than anything else. Jonathan Glazer (the talented director) should most definitely consider this a success. The opening of the movie clearly refers to 2001, it almost seems to warn the audience that they need to be ready to follow Under the Skin in the way that 2001 needs to be followed: visually and emotionally. There's also something of Solaris and Altered States to be found here.

Although, in classic Kubrickian style, even following it visually yields no answers in the opening, and don't expect the rest of the film to clarify it. The images onscreen seem to show the construction of an eye, but simultaneously they seem to show some kind of spacecraft or something (I give up on this sentence). This very obscure, protracted 'scene' coupled with an immediately unnerving soundtrack sets up the tone of the movie in perfect fashion.

And what tone is that? Uneasy, cold, curious, predatory, feminist and even at times, strangely comic. To sum it up, I felt weird indeed, after both times I saw the film. The scene on the beach seems to be the nadir of our sympathy for Johansson's character and a masterclass in controlled horror. The crying of the baby affects neither alien at all, and Glazer chooses to leave its fate entirely unresolved. For me, its cries were an ever present echo throughout subsequent events; the scene unnerved me more even than the ones where her prey
met their end.

Which brings me to the special effects. Not until the end do we get any glimpse of what the hell she is, the only clues we have are (besides her performance in general that is) in what we see of her prey's fate. They enter into a void of blackness, and her siren song begins. It is bone chilling (listen below). She undresses, drawing them further in, and as they walk on they sink into some unimaginable black abyss in the floor, literally walking to their doom. Later in the movie we follow them and see what will become of them. So this is what 'under the skin' means. The most strangely touching moment of all occurs here, when two of her victims reach out and hold one another for the briefest of moments before something truly horrific happens.

http://www.juno.co.uk/miniflashplayer/SF523835-01-01-03.mp3

Those scenes in the black void are some of the most atmospheric, horrific and most full of dread I have ever seen.

Now for a few lofty ideas about what I think Under the Skin may mean. Firstly, the most obvious perspective that occurred to me was the feminist perspective. She is a hunter and a predator, and her prey are exclusively men. Perhaps that shouldn't make such a bold statement but I think it does. In those final moments, she has all the power. 'Come to me' she commands, drawing them in to their strange fate. In the scenes in the van where she is hunting, she asks all the questions and determine their ultimate destination. Her sexuality is her weapon, or more benignly, her prerogative. Only once in the film is the promise of sex fulfilled and it is entirely on her terms.

The other way to view the film is as a look at what it means to be human (cliche I know) and how we define ourselves. The whole second half of the movie is in fact overtly devoted to this. But it can be found right from the start. She prowls the streets of Glasgow, and we see just how odd it all is really. Thousands of people rushing around buying clothes and spending money for no real reason, doing things that on a grander level, mean nothing at all. The first time we see her really confused and even frightened is when a group of women bring her into a club. She has never seen anything like this, and you can tell. Later on, the look on her face is one of utter perplexity when watching a comedy routine on television. Later still, trying to initiate a kiss with a kindly man she looks so clumsy and unnatural it is difficult to remember this is Scarlett Johansson.

At times like these, something approaching sympathy and understanding begins to be felt for her. I think this is because the character is becoming disassociated with her alien nature and becoming more of a general embodiment of humanity. She represents the part of all of us that still feels lost in a vast, frightening and incomprehensible world.

It is a major achievement to carry off the balancing act that Under the Skin successfully does, between the most mundane social realism and the most incredible special effects. To show us a man opening a carton of eggs to make sure they're not broken before buying them, and then to show us an alien taking off a human skin is bold indeed. It could fail, but I don't think it does.

But I think we should forget all of this when watching the movie. No 'explanation' can cover the entire movie; themes fade in and out, becoming more or less relevant as it progresses. Under the Skin is all about mood and emotion. Themes can be identified after, but the genius of it is such that without making any populist concessions, the movie engrosses entirely on its own terms. To call it slow paced or plotless is not even criticism. It is what it is, and what it is is a work of art.




Director- Jonathon Glazer
Music by Mica Levi

My Top Ten Movies

I was very dissatisfied with my previous list for numerous reasons, not least of which is how much it has changed since I wrote it. So here's a new one. I'm only allowing myself one film per director this time, and I'm not going to rank them; this is simply a collection of my ten favourite movies, in alphabetical order.


2001: A Space Odyssey
Brazil
Chinatown
The Godfather
Inside Llewyn Davis
Lost In Translation
Reds
Rushmore
There Will Be Blood
The Truman Show




2001: A Space Odyssey
-Stanley Kubrick

The big one, without whom science-fiction would be a very different place today indeed. Firstly, this absolutely has to be seen in a cinema. I watched it on DVD first then had the good fortune of attending a big screen showing in Leeds Town Hall (yet another reason why Leeds is great) and it was as if I'd seen two different movies. Honestly, the difference is astonishing. 2001 demands the biggest picture, the loudest volume, because its themes and its tones are the biggest and loudest, while being the most precise, anti-bombastic anti-Star Wars movie as it could be.

Don't come to this film expecting to follow a plot or dialogue, instead sit back and let the experience wash over you. It is the closest any film has ever come to achieving true artistic transcendence, and so let it do its thing. It has to be followed visually and emotionally or not followed at all.

The monolith, the music, the jump cut, HAL, the stargate, Daisy, the waltz, the star child, the apes, all of these are recognisable in the cultural canon nowadays. In a way, that's really odd because 2001 is in no way a populist movie, at times it deliberately seeks to alienate. The first dialogue we hear is banal to the extreme and the most human character at times seems to be the computer HAL 3000. It is a cold movie, for the most part, as Kubrick always brought a chilly air to his films but in place of humanity and warmth there is instead awe and transcendence.

Kubrick made two truly great movies: 2001 and Dr Strangelove. The latter is completely sublime and could be in my top 10 too, but if Strangelove is a perfect movie then 2001 is a perfect piece of art. Or is it something else entirely? It defies description. That is why I rate it his highest.



Brazil
-Terry Gilliam

If you like your futures bleak, your Christmasses marked by false imprisonment, your machines broken and wheezing and your bureaucracies inefficient then you'll love Terry Gilliam's masterpiece Brazil. 

It opens with a Christmastime arrest that immediately places you in Gilliam-world, with a subversion of the Santa Claus myth, the ever present ducts making an appearance and the wife of the arrested man being billed for the service. The rest of the film sees the audience doing their best to hold on as it hurtles through a bewildering array of themes and scenes.

Of particular note are the dream sequences, where a heroically-garbed Sam flies through skyscrapers of filing cabinets, fighting strange Samurai monsters and rescuing his love. These are so imaginative and so well executed that I think I was smiling the whole way through the first time I watched it. The whole movie is that way, full of little surprises and great moments of physical comedy. Particularly the scene below with the shared desk, or where Sam hysterically demands that she drive away.

Though most of my favourite scenes are the ones involving Robert DeNiro in a very unexpected role as a rogue plumber. 'I got into this for the action, you know?'

Those are the funny moments, but just as frequent are the ones with great unease, vague horror and cynicism. Sam's journey from arrest to interrogation is particularly harrowing. The resulting tone is a strange one that will either capture your imagination or completely bore you. I find a peculiar innocence in Brazil; it's a film that exists because Gilliam loves film as an artistic medium. Its immersive quality is never more apparent than in films like this.

Special mention goes to the music; the eponymous 'Brazil'. It is a great film indeed in which a blend of samba and sci-fi urban decay seems to work. The bleak ending in particular feels suddenly horrific with the jaunty dance playing over it.

Chinatown
-Roman Polanski

"What did you do in Chinatown?" "As little as possible"

So answers Jake Gittes in this movie. He means that in Chinatown, a place of many languages,cultures, alliances and grudges, it can be impossible to know whether an action will make the situation better or much worse for anybody. Best to just leave it alone.

But this time the whole of L.A seems to be Chinatown, and Jake Gittes finds himself having to meddle. This is my favourite Jack Nicholson performance; he finds a perfect balance between being Jack Nicholson the legend and Jake Gittes the character. Faye Dunaway is great too, a fragile, damaged screen presence, concealing everything but showing all the pain in her eyes.

This is a complicated story in a film that feels dense, dark ,twisting and paranoid throughout, but such is Polanski's storytelling skill that we remain riveted throughout, fully aware of the unknown dangers lurking offscreen. Of course, this should be true of all good noir films, and time has treated Chinatown favourably, such that it now seems not neo noir at all but pure old-school noir. A worthy successor to a great tradition of movie making.

"I like breathing through it"

Saying that, there is a dirty, unsavory aspect to the plot and characters that is atypical of the genre. Particularly, Jake Gittes is not a hard-boiled, unfeeling tough guy. Indeed, occasionally he exhibits behaviours that would seem to suggest he is unsuited to this line of work. 'I'm in matrimonial work; it's my metier'. When he stumbles across a plot of extortion, murder and incest he is not excited by what he finds, but disgusted.

Forget it, Jake.



The Godfather
-Francis Ford Coppola

Stanley Kubrick apparently considered this the best movie ever made, are you going to disagree with him? I am for now writing only about Part I, not Part II, although I love both equally.

'I believe in America', and immediately, we know this isn't an ordinary gangster film. In a virtuoso opening sequence, we are immersed in both halves of the Corleone world; business and family. We meet them all; Sonny the hothead, Tom the advisor, Fredo the wannabe, Michael the outsider and of course, Vito the respected old Don. Then Michael tells us a story about his old man, which exemplifies the curious attitude of audiences toward the family. They are murderous criminals, but we are fascinated by them. We in, fact, care about them. We root for them! Ebert found a problem with this, particularly in Part II. But I don't think Coppola wants us to like them, far from it. This is no Wolf of Wall Street . The genius of the film is that we are in two films, the gangster movie and a family drama. They exist simultaneously and complement eachother.

The success of this balancing act is in no small part due to the wonderful music by Nino Rota. Never has there been a greater marriage of subject and music; the love theme in particular encapsulates the grandeur, tragedy and danger of the Corleone saga. Some of my favourite moments in all cinema are those in Sicily, the gorgeous tones of the cinematography matching those of Rota's score.

This is perhaps the most quotable and quoted movie of all time, a deserved accolade for a film with some of the best dialogue you'll ever hear. Again, we find the mix of business and family: 'Leave the gun, take the cannoli' 'He made him an offer he couldn't refuse'. The scene in the garden with Vito and Michael is an absolute masterclass in acting. It is not two actors acting but two people reacting. Wonderful.

I would also like to acknowledge two other Francis Ford Coppola films: The Conversation and Apocalypse Now. The former is the quintessential paranoid thriller with a fantastic performance from Gene Hackman. The latter the greatest war film ever made, a horrifying journey into the heart of darkness.




Inside Llewyn Davis
-the Coen Brothers

Now this was a difficult choice. I don't believe any other living filmmakers have a canon so rich, so original and so important as Joel and Ethan Coen. Their movies are so distinctive yet so varied, a class in filmmaking could be had from their output alone. They have covered so much ground in such a sincere way, they deserve utmost praise.

I really had  a hard time deciding which of theirs to pick. It came down to A Serious Man, Inside Llewyn Davis, Fargo and True Grit. I could easily put all four in my top ten. A Serious Man may be their best. Fargo may be their most original and best executed. But Llewyn Davis hit me hard and connected with me deeply.

I saw it three times in the three weeks or so it was in the cinema, and I believe I would have gone to see it again.

It opens beautifully; Llewyn (Oscar Isaac) plays his wonderful version of Hang Me, Oh Hang Me to a rapt audience in the Gaslight Cafe. We know right from the start how good he is and what he can do with a captive audience, but the rest of the movie shows us why he can't pull in an audience of his own. 'I miss Mike', says a character at one point. So does Llewyn. Mike was his partner who threw himself off the George Washington Bridge. Mike is the unseen second lead throughout the movie, the reason behind most of Llewyn's actions.

He can't catch a break, he doesn't even have a winter coat. At this point, it seems he's about ready to give up. The plot of the film, as I see it, is Llewyn being presented with choice after choice, with him turning every one down or failing. Finally, he takes the coward's way out and decides to give up and re-join the merchant marines. But he can't even afford to do that. So he's stuck, in the right place at the wrong time. He missed the boat before he even realised it was in the dock.

It sounds thoroughly depressing, and in a way it is. The beauty of the movie is in its tone; a vinyl film in a world of compact discs, and in its performances.It is often funny and often deeply sad, but always compelling and sincere.

'Play me something from inside Llewyn Davis...'

"I don't see a lot of money here"

Lost In Translation
-Sofia Coppola

I'm really not a fan of Sofia Coppola's other works, I think she makes the fatal error of confusing the morose with the interesting and taking a slow, contemplative pace but removing the contemplation. However she really made something special in Lost In Translation.

I had a little look at this already in another post, so I shan't keep you long, but briefly: this is an adult movie. I mean that in the sense that it is about adults and their adult emotions and made for adults to reflect on.

I've never seen another movie that looks at a (possibly) romantic relationship that didn't grate on me at some point. Movies are never truthful about love or two people who are just getting along well, so they always just do movie love instead. Lost In Translation doesn't. It does two people, suddenly finding themselves utterly lost and without anchor, so they find each other instead.

Bill Murray gives a truly wonderful performance that seems entirely inappropriate to label a performance at all. He is so utterly within the character that, in the words of almighty Ebert, It's sometimes said of an actor that we can't see him acting. I can't even see him not acting. He seems to be existing, merely existing, in the situation created for him by Sofia Coppola. 

This may be Scarlett Johansson's finest role too. She has a reputation as a Hollywood uber-babe, but in the right role, she shines. Here she has an aching sadness about her that , with Bill Murray, lifts the movie into glory.

The ending is perfect. We don't hear the words they say to each other, but we don't need to. It barely even matters; we can see from their actions that they are happy with this outcome, and that is enough. They have earned their privacy.




Reds
-Warren Beatty

I started watching this film because I noticed it had Jack Nicholson in it. What a surprise then when I realised the many riches Reds has to offer.

It is a truly sweeping epic story, following the American Communist journalist John Reed , and those close to him, through the major events in his life. And what events they were. This is a movie about politics, real politics, the kind driven by fundamental rights, the drive to realise them in law and the determination to affect real change. We see the kind of politics that doesn't exist anymore, the kind that takes place in basements and beer halls  and goes all the way to the top. How refreshing to see a film take on such a subject and not dilute it or romanticise it but show it in its gritty, raw and complex truth. Even when looking at petty infighting, it's gaze is not averted.

But there is a personal story here too; the characters brought to life by some of the best acting I have ever seen. Warren Beatty, Paul Sorvino and Jack Nicholson truly are wonderful, but the star of the show in my opinion is Diane Keaton. I found myself hanging on her every word and expression, constantly interested in what she was thinking.

Both the politics and the people in the film are given depth by the genius addition of 'the witnesses'. Interviews with the real people who knew the real figures involved. The resulting film is just fascinating. It is long and at times hard to follow, but I was just enthralled.




Rushmore
-Wes Anderson

To quote Matt Zoller Seitz, a greater Anderson authority than I, 'There are few perfect movies. This is one of them'.

'Sharp little guy'. 'He's one of the worst students we've got'. So introduced is Max Fischer, perhaps my favourite movie character of all time. He goes to the prep school Rushmore. He is 15. He is founder or part of; the French Club, the Debate Team, the Lacrosse Team (manager), the Calligraphy Club, the Astronomy Society, the Fencing Team, the choir, Bombardment Society, Trap and Skeet Club, Rushmore Beekeepers... He loves Rushmore.

He befriends Bill Murray, as a lonely steel tycoon. He falls in love with an undeniably lovely teacher. He puts on school plays the likes of which have never been seen before. Jason Schwartzman plays him such that despite acting in very questionable ways at times, we still love him. How could we not? Max just loves life, and lives it the way he wants to.

This is one of my favourite films because it has a real rebellious, fuck you streak to it that is somewhat absent in later Anderson movies. It is also very fair to its characters. Max , obviously, cannot be with Miss Cross. In pursuing her, he is making life much more difficult for her, for Blume and not least for himself. But the movie understands why he does, and why he needs to realise this himself. There's a naivety and a knowing cynicism to Rushmore , there's joy and deep sadness.

This is present most of all in the final scene, after the premiere of his play. 'At least nobody got hurt' , 'Except for you', replies Miss Cross. Meaning both in his play and in his life. She is about to dance with him, the look on her face meaning everything and nothing at once, the end and the beginning.

"I think I can safely say I've never met anyone like you either"

But this film is also just so funny. Bill Murray ducking behind a tree, the Kubrickian children loitering in the grounds, the frightening Scotsman, the Max Fischer players, the Grover Cleveland fencing club. Like most Wes Anderson films, it is a joy to watch. Being able to smile at a particular cut or music choice is a rare thing, the form often forgotten in place of content. But Anderson pulls it off.

In Rushmore he introduces a preoccupation with death and memories that would echo through his films, from the Royal Tenenbaums up to the Grand Budapest Hotel. Death and darkness behind the quirky Anderson facade, so cleverly ingrained in the movie that the thoughtfulness and sadness behind his movies could easily go over the heads of the casual movie goer.

(and of course, there is a great soundtrack)




There Will Be Blood
- Paul Thomas Anderson

A very divisive film, as many of the greats are. Starting with Punch Drunk Love and, as of March 2014, culminating with the Master, PTA moved from Scorsese-esque stylish pieces looking inside a particular culture to more Kubrickian, ambient portraits of singular men. These latter films, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood and the Master  are distinctly different from Hard Eight, Boogie Nights and Magnolia. They take a much more distanced, objective look at their protagonists and for the most part, that's all they do. Plot takes a major back seat to atmosphere, character and pure old fashioned film making. It's often forgotten that story is only one aspect to a movie, that film can be transcendent and reach to the emotions and not just to the mind.

There Will Be Blood finds the perfect balance between all these things. From the abstract horror of the opening sequences (and the opening shot itself) to the hypnotic speechifying of Daniel Day Lewis' incredible Daniel Plainview, to the madness of the final scene, this movie is a complete cinematic experience.

Daniel Plainview appears from nowhere, alone, clawing and attacking the earth itself, until he becomes drenched in its blood; oil. Like some kind of elemental creature, he is silent and driven and brutal, a creature of oil and the land, hand risen to the sky, claiming the Earth. This is all before he says a single word.

"There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet! And nobody can get at it except for me"

This movie works on the same level as another on my list, 2001: a Space Odyssey. It goes beyond dialogue and plot into an emotional, visceral experience that bypasses the literal part of the movie-going mind. Saying this, the film is also very quotable too. The dialogue is fantastic; Daniel Day Lewis does indeed breathe physical life into Daniel Plainview but his method of control over his surroundings lies in his words. "I have a competition in me, I want no-one else to succeed". "I can't keep doing this. With these...people."

If I were doing more than one film per director I could possibly add even two more PTA films: Magnolia - an Altman-esque look at one extraordinary day in the lives of an interconnected group of L.A residents and: Punch Drunk Love a really wonderful 80 min movie starring Adam Sandler. A masterpiece that gets lost amongst PTA's other more obvious masterpieces. Watch!












The Truman Show
-Peter Weir

This is the first film I can recall enjoying beyond a purely superficial level. It has a wonderful visual aesthetic with a very thoughtful underpinning that appealed to me greatly. To find Jim Carrey pull off a role like this so perfectly is also a joy.

It is difficult to imagine how differently this would have been perceived at the time of its release; one person is secretly filmed living their life , the footage then broadcast on television. A far fetched concept at the time. People I have asked who saw the film's original release recall thinking, 'why would anyone watch?'. As each year passes it becomes maddeningly closer and closer to reality. The sheer number of 'reality' shows is astonishing, and as these people allow more and more invasion into their private lives, the less fictional the world of the Truman Show seems.

Peter Weir plays with the grammar of television and film to reveal how hollow it can be; look at the shot when they reunite Truman with 'his dad'. The music swells, hoping to capture our emotion, and at its peak, cut to Christof in the control room, signalling for more music. Moments like this, where the director pulls the rug out from under us, are part of the magic of this movie.

"I'd throw myself in front of traffic for you"

The magic can also be found in the performances of the actors. In a movie like this, the strong concept has the potential to overwhelm the human side of it, but the cast hold their own. Jim Carrey is of course wonderful, he projects his characteristic charm in a particular way that seems naive and completely likeable. As if , in fact, he'd lived his whole life among actors in a world with no danger to him.

I hope that in describing this film, I don't fail to convey the emotional aspect to the movie. It is indeed a movie rich with ideas and themes, but there is a great human story too. I believe it is the first film i cried at, and subsequent viewings haven't diluted this effect. Who could remain unaffected by the glorious end sequences? Wonderful.

"You never had a camera in my head"

Films that narrowly missed out:

The Aviator
North By Northwest
Synecdoche, New York
Jackie Brown

A Look... Inside Llewyn Davis

Play me something from inside Llewyn Davis...
(spoilerific)



The way that one judges this character and this scene and perhaps even the whole movie depends on how you hear this line. Is it 'play me something from, 'Inside Llewyn Davis'' or 'play me something from inside Llewyn Davis'? Having seen the film twice now, I think the latter.

Llewyn is a classic Coen character; a somewhat talented man whose talents are eclipsed by an apathetic world, unsympathetic supporting characters and seemingly nature itself. To be more specific, this film is a clear blend of the Coen masterpiece 'A Serious Man' and 'Barton Fink'. Misfortune piles upon misfortune and all Llewyn, or in the case of ASM Larry Gopnik, can do is ask why him. But, like Barton Fink, he considers himself an artist yet won't take the gifts the world seems to be offering. In BF, he 'JUST WON'T LISTEN' to his neighbour's stories.

In Llewyn's case, Bud Grossman seems to offer him a way out, offering him the chance to join the trio he's putting together. Of course, this does come after the most devastating moment in the movie, where Llewyn does indeed play something from 'inside', and it is deeply moving. But Bud gives him an honest answer 'I don't see a lot of money in this'. Is this why Llewyn turns him down? Or is it the hurt of recalling his last partnership with the unseen Mike, who threw himself off the George Washington Bridge?

In a strange way, I hope it is this. Llewyn does act in very selfish, arrogant and unpleasant ways in the movie, but several times he seems to reveal a deep aching sadness. In the Gorfein's, when Lilian Gorfein hilariously begins to sing with him, he shockingly yells at her to stop. She was singing Mike's harmony. He gets angry with John Goodman's character when he makes fun of Mike's suicide. If he has shut himself off from the world because of this pain, then he seems somewhat redeemed.

However, saying all that, the movie elicits sympathy for him anyway. It is so masterful a film that I didn't realise until long afterwards how odd it was that I felt so sorry for Llewyn, considering his attitude and actions. I suppose we must wonder how long he might have been at this for. He does seem talented ( Oscar Isaacs renditions of these classic folk songs are actually breathtaking ) and late in the movie he simply says 'I'm tired.' After all, how long can a talented individual continue to have their heart broken and their skills unrecognised without being affected in some way?

I felt very deeply for Llewyn. So many of the scenes and sentiments were very familiar to me as a musician. A true stroke of genius was to open the movie with his magnificent version of 'Hang Me Oh Hang Me', we know from the very start how good he is. I love that the Coens allow us to hear full songs in the film, not just clips. We see for ourselves what the other characters do.

I could say so much more about 'Inside Llewyn Davis'. I could mention how the cat reminded me of the hat in 'Miller's Crossing' or how the soft focus and gorgeous camera work and palette reminded me of the difference between CD and vinyl. This is a vinyl movie, a funny movie, a great movie. At the moment 'A Serious Man' or 'Fargo' are probably my favourite Coen movies, but I can easily see this taking the top spot one day.

So go see it. Please do. The Coen brothers are masters of cinema as an art, and this is a prime example of why. I give it full marks: beautiful.





If you like this movie, try these Coen classics:

'Barton Fink'
'A Serious Man'
'O Brother Where Art Thou?'
'The Man Who Wasn't There'

or indeed any movie of theirs, but those are the most similar.

Two Films in Two Days- a Reflection

Last Thursday I saw 12 Years A Slave, and Friday I saw The Wolf of Wall Street. Both were something of an occasion; my cinema trip on Thursday was the first time I'd seen a film on my own, and Friday's marked my first 18 certificate, first Scorsese and first 3 hour movie in the cinema. Here are my thoughts on both.

12 Years A Slave

dir. Steve McQueen

I will be very clear: this film is important. As many people as possible should see it. The cynicism with which some cinematically misinformed fools dismiss this - some without even watching it, I might add - as 'just another slave movie' is both misplaced and despicable. I genuinely don't even understand that charge, there simply haven't been many mainstream movies made about or heavily featuring slavery. It is a difficult subject, and one that casts an often unwanted light on to America's less than honorable past, which must account in some part for this deficiency. But more simply, it is not 'just another movie' in any sense. Forgetting the social context, 12 Years A Slave is an extraordinary piece of work. Here's why.

This film seizes hold of your emotions and doesn't let go, even when it's over. Through the beauty of the dialogue, un-intrusive camera work , some of the best acting I've ever seen and obviously the story itself, I had an experience in the cinema I never have before. 

The story is that of Solomon Northup, a free black man from New York who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. The film shows his experiences as a slave, struggling against cruel masters, constant degradation and despair itself. Early on, he says two things that show he understands the situation he is in, even if he cannot comprehend it. Firstly, after being warned that to survive, he must keep his head down and not make trouble, until circumstances change, he declares 'I don't want to survive; I want to live'. Some time later, he finds himself in a similar situation, except this time the roles are changed and he finds himself saying 'I will survive. I will not fall into despair. I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune'. That last line seems to me to be the most important. He struggles throughout his 12 years to find the line between complete capitulation and dangerous defiance. His free life is still waiting for him, and he will return.

I won't go into plot description too deeply today, so I'll say only a little bit more. I truly feel that eventually, people will talk about this film as one of the greatest ever made. Watching it is such an intense experience; when the credits rolled, nobody moved in the cinema. I could hear everybody quietly crying as i sat there for a good 5 minutes trying to compose myself. Some of the scenes are genuinely difficult to watch, and others are hard to take your eyes away from. Throughout, the camera returns to simple close ups of Solomon's face, the horror and pain on his face truly heartbreaking. Perhaps the best shot of all is near the end, he stares off screen in despair , moving his gaze until he is looking only at the audience,as if beseeching their help. Then he looks elsewhere. If there was doubt before that Chiwetel Eijiofor's performance is anything less than astonishing, there is none after this moment.

My favourite scene is the extraordinary one in which Solomon and his fellow slaves are burying a fallen worker. They gather round the grave, and start to sing Roll, Jordan, Roll. Solomon seems to struggle internally with something, I won't try to guess what. But he seems to come to some kind of resolution, and sings with them, his passion burning on his face. Music plays an important part in this film, but none more so than in this scene.

Obviously, this movie invites comparisons with Django Unchained. The difference is that Django is a nasty, self-satisfied exploitation film; 12 Years  A Slave is art. 12 Years A Slave is magnificent. A vital, horrific, important and heartbreaking film. I could not recommend it highly enough.

The Wolf Of Wall Street

dir. Martin Scorsese

I love Scorsese. I love DiCaprio. My favourite collaboration of theirs is The Aviator , but I also love Gangs of New York, the Departed and Shutter Island. So it was with great disappointment that I find myself disliking their latest effort. 

Again, I will be quite clear. I have no qualms with a movie presenting a violent, misogynistic, racist, homophobic or any other such unpleasant world/characters on screen. But I do have a problem with spending three hours watching a horrible man doing horrible things in his horrible world and receive almost no comeuppance whatsoever.

And that is my issue with the film. I found it very very funny almost all throughout, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. Jordan Belfort- this is another true story, bear in mind - is a stockbroker who has figured out a way to make huge amounts of money very quickly by swindling people who can little afford it. He uses their money to live lavishly, extravagantly, despicably carefree. There are so many orgy and drug use scenes that I started to get very bored with it all.

The treatment of women is very bad too. As I said, I have no problem with a movie depicting a misogynist world, but when all the female characters are sex workers, eye candy or whiny, unpleasant wives then it feels like the movie is almost tacitly approving of it. This I don't like.

There are no specific scenes that ruin The Wolf Of Wall Street , it's just the tone and the length that made me dislike it so. It is funny, but ultimately there seems to be no point to it whatsoever. You don't like the protagonist, so there's no way in to the movie there. You're not as rich as he is, nor are most people stockbrokers, so there's no in there either. It's not even making a point about the excesses of the financial sector, because Jordan Belfort seems to get off scot free! If these weren't clear enough from the movie anyway, the real man himself actually has a cameo near the end. I found this bad taste indeed. It seems something of a companion piece to Goodfellas and perhaps also Casino , but this is nowhere near as good as those classics. The thing is, they had a point to them, a focus. This has none.

 While it may be funny, Leo may be great and you might slightly enjoy it at the time, this is not  a very good film, and certainly not up to the standards of Scorsese's best work.

  

Film Releases I Am Looking Forward To

Inside Llewyn Davis

dir. The Coen Brothers

Her

dir. Spike Jonze

Inherent Vice

dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

Film Recommendations

A few films that have really impressed me recently


That's not to say they were released this year, but any I watched for the first time this year. Here we go:



A.I: Artificial Intelligence
dir. Steven Spielberg

I watched this on recommendation from the excellent Wittertainment team at 5 Live, Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo. They interviewed Spielberg on the show and Mark apologised for giving it a bad review when first released, saying he now considers it his 'enduring masterpiece'.

Thus, I came to this fascinating, heartbreaking film.Conceived by Stanley Kubrick and finally made after his death, A.I bears the marks of both its creators. The distanced, chilly precision of Kubrick's camera blends with the instantly familiar style of Spielberg to create a truly enthralling film.

David is a robot, a 'mecha' in the film's language, the first ever robot boy created to truly love a human. But will a human ever love him? To his human 'mother', he is at first a replacement and later, when her biological son is returned to her, a danger. To his brother, he is a toy. To the mecha-fearing humans, a hate figure. And to his creator, he is merely an achievement. The movie is this but so much more. So many questions are raised and none answered, and there are a great many tearjerking moments. Fans of genuinely interesting, provocative sci-fi must watch this truly underrated Spielberg film.




Silver Linings Playbook
dir. David O. Russell

A silly romcom, is what I expected, a throwaway movie with throwaway characters. But I was intrigued by the title and the acclaim it was receiving, so I watched it. With growing surprise I found myself not only enjoying the film, but really loving it.

In general it is just a romcom, albeit one with an edge, but in the details there can be found wonderful performances, unconventional humour and a refreshingly real heart. A heart that's strong enough to ask the audience to accept a romance without the obligatory sex scene. There are some truly funny moments here, like the diner scene, Jennifer Lawrence unexpectedly joining Bradley Cooper's jog, and most of De Niro's scenes. I'm also grateful to this movie for showing us that Robert De Niro can still act when he wants to.

The performances are fine indeed, and with David O. Russell's careful direction, this film is just great really. Lovely stuff.

Cloud Atlas
dir. The Wachowskis

Magnificent! After a torrent of reviews calling it everything from a failure, to boring to a disappointment, I expected little. But I simply cannot understand this. Cloud Atlas is truly magnificent. Gripping from open to close, it is a bold, intelligent and adventurous picture that never compromises its values for the sake of excitement and explosions.

And what are these exactly? It seems to celebrate freedom, intelligence, honesty, love and storytelling itself. Across 6 storylines and 7 time frames that go from historical epic, to drama, to thriller, to comedy, to sci fi, the movie weaves a web of connections and coincidences that illustrate the similar challenges and emotions that humanity always has and always will face.


Lost In Translation
dir. Sopfia Coppola

When one hears the phrase 'adult movie',  one thinks of (not porn) lots of swearing, violence, nudity and perhaps hard drug use. I would describe Lost In Translation as an adult movie, but for exactly the opposite reason to the above. To say that it has two lead characters, dissatisfied in their respective relationships, away from home and both clearly attracted to the other for whatever reasons, the least we would expect of a lesser movie is a regretted sex scene. If not that, then a passionate declaration of love perhaps, and a tearful explanation  of why they can't be together.

But Sofia Coppola treats her audience as adults who understand that for these characters, this just isn't the right story. They are adrift geographically and metaphorically, lonely and isolated in a city full of strangers. They connect with one another, and not in a lazy Hollywood way but truthfully, through the sharing of silences and awkward situations. They share a bed one night, but they simply lie there next to each other.

There are indeed many moments where sex is there, hovering outside the door as a plausible and perhaps even expected possibility. But instead they take something else from their week together, and when they leave perhaps their lives will be better for having met.

The ending is sheer perfection. What words do they share in their final goodbye? We do not hear, but they have earned their privacy, they deserve it. And as adults, we should respect that.

Synecdoche, New York
dir. Charlie Kaufmann

Nobody can accurately describe this movie in any profitable sense, one can only give fleeting impressions of the different aspects that make up a deeply moving, unsettling and confusing whole. Totally bewildering would not be an unfair way to describe Synecdoche, New York. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman (my favourite actor, so definitely a good start) is a middle aged stage director, who is falling away from his wife, his health and his confidence. So many things happen I genuinely don't know how to convey the essence of this film. It can be found in incredible surreal passages where a woman buys a house which is always on fire, and only decades later dies of smoke inhalation, or where Caden (our protagonist) realises he never noticed the tattoo on his wife's back, or where in order to achieve complete truth in his play, he hires first an actor to play himself, then an actor to play the actor playing himself, and later an actor to play the actor playing the actor playing himself.

These isolated moments still don't convey what this film is about. Charlie Kaufmann has said that he wanted to create a horror film about things people are really afraid of. Like growing old, becoming ill, making nothing of oneself, the horrific and remorseless march of time. There are moments where Caden seems to wake up mid conversation to realise that years, or even decades have passed without his noticing. When his wife takes herself and their child to live in another country, the child accidently leaves behind her diary. But as the years pass, Caden reads the diary to discover his daughter writing about her forgetting her father and discovering who she is without him.

He wants to put on a play simulating life in New York, and to do so buys an impossibly huge warehouse, creating another city within it, one that has yet another warehouse inside it. Caden grows elderly and still the play still isn't finished, but that never seemed to be the point.

Truly, this film is mesmerising. Only after watching it several times can one begin to understand the depth of its greatness. Or indeed, understand it at all.

On why... Inglourious Basterds is Terrible

...and a general critique of Quentin Tarantino

I felt compelled to write this after watching Inglourious Basterds for the first time, and let it be known before I begin that I am a massive Tarantino fan. At least, a fan of his first three films.

And that is why I go so far as to say this film is terrible. With Reservoir Dogs he created an incredibly tense, compelling and shocking movie. As a debut it was stunning and it remains undiminished today. Then came Pulp Fiction ,which redefined modern cinema and is possibly the coolest film ever. Following it with Jackie Brown, he reached a peak that I don't believe he has even come close to since. In fact he seems to have tumbled down the other side of the peak into some ravine, broken all his limbs and long since given up on trying to crawl out.

Anyway, let's define clearly the ingredients of a Tarantino film, both good and bad.

1. Dialogue!

Of course it is. His skill with it follows the trajectory of success of his films, as in it's brilliant in RD, better in PF and absolutely genius in JB. After that however, it falls away into a mess of self-indulgence and self-reverence. His dialogue is at its best when it is rambling and seemingly tangential, but obviously makes sense in the context of the particular film. This is why the 'quarter pounder with cheese' and 'let's get into character' dialogues from PF are particularly good; they give us a bit of backstory about Vincent, an idea of Jules' attitude to his job and we really get the sense that these are two guys talking shit on their way to work. My other favourite moment of Tarantino dialogue is in JB, when Ordell and Louis are talking in the campervan after the botched deal, pondering what went wrong. Ironically, the best bit about this dialogue is the silence. Tarantino lets Jackson just think... and then he says, 'It's Jackie Brown'.


2. Non-linear time frames

A Tarantino hallmark not used since Kill Bill (I think!). This is the one I've always felt a bit uneasy about, thinking that it can come across as arbitrary and more as a gimmick than anything else. I like it very much in PF however; it creates an emotional story arc for the audience where there wouldn't be one had the events been presented in chronological order. RD uses it very well to reveal things to the viewer that the characters don't know.

3. Violence

He doesn't like to talk about it (I'M NOT YOUR SLAVE AND YOU'RE NOT MY MASTER), but it is nevertheless a big part in every single one of his films. And it all began so well! In Reservoir Dogs it is genuinely shocking and difficult to watch, as all violence should be. In fact, just to demonstrate how well handled it is in this movie, the camera actually looks away from the violence at THAT particularly difficult moment. (about 2:21 in)

In his first three movies, the violence was just part of them, part of the stories they told. But then something happened, related to my next ingredient...


4. References

Supposedly the ultimate fanboy turned auteur, his oeuvre is littered with obscure movie references, blatant plagiarism and instances of him simply copying the music of other films to achieve the same effect. Again, in the first three QT offerings, this was done well and watching these feels like watching the work of a genuine cinephile.


But, and this applies to all of the ingredients, Tarantino seems to have started listening to what was being said about him. He heard that audiences liked his dialogue, so from then on he made every single character sound like him, and talk for hours about nothing at all and go on and on and on. This is made worse when the actors delivering the lines are not up to scratch; it definitely takes a Harvey Keitel, a Pam Grier, a Sam Jackson, a Christoph Waltz to convincingly say his lines. But look at  Pulp Fiction in particular, it is full of different characters talking in different ways and it's interesting. Then look at Kill Bill and Death Proof : they're all Quentin Tarantino! The men, the women, the Americans, the Japanese... all Quentin Tarantino. And watching numerous Tarantinos talking to eachother for hours on end is very unpleasant. Watching one do a ten minute interview is difficult enough.

What has happened to the violence and references is related. After much thought, I've concluded that success must have gone to his head and he is surrounded now by yes-men and fanboys who don't have the guts to tell him when he's going off track. This is the only explanation I have for why an obviously talented, disciplined and exciting film maker could stoop to such lows as KB, DP, IB and Django Unchained .

They actually fall into two easy categories. Kill Bill and Death Proof both suffer from a tremendous lack of discipline. They both are intended as homages to martial arts cinema and grindhouse respectively, but both fail in their intent. JB is an homage to blaxploitation, and it works so well because it takes the feel and the look of the genre it admires and takes it somewhere new and original. It is exactly what it needs to be and no more; it is tight, disciplined. If Tarantino in his first three films is a lean, swanky suit wearing wunderkind, then in every movie after that he is a bulging, slobby, lazy layabout, inviting you into his bedroom to show you clips of his favourite movies. And that is how his new movies feel; like they were made by somebody who has nobody around him willing to speak up and say when a scene is losing its way. Too long, too unfocused , too silly and completely unoriginal.


And now on to Inglourious Basterds. The first and most obvious criticism is that it seems to be AS LONG AS WORLD WAR II ITSELF. And there is no excuse for it. Even the least avid film fan can see how flabby it is. It is like this because Tarantino can't bear to hear his dialogue cut down, he feels that every single precious thought of his must be brought to bear on screen. Even in the good scenes, one feels the passage of time and the gnawing sense of boredom creep in. Even the opening scene - the best in the film and one I think rather brilliant actually - takes far too long. Just cut it down Quentin!

And write some interesting dialogue please! The tedious scene with Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger in the bierkeller contains such banal conversation it makes 2001 feel like ,well, Pulp Fiction! The bits that I thought interesting were the quips about German and French cinema. At these points it felt like the film might be approaching an underlying theme, but one was soon reminded by a gratuitous scalping scene or bewildering Mike Myers cameo that the film's only purpose was to be fatuous and silly. On that note, let's talk about the ending.

What?!

I just don't get it. The film is utterly boring and tedious and then suddenly we're gunning down Goebbels and Hitler?

What?!

Oh I get it! This supposed Jewish revenge fantasy- morally dubious anyway- is not even really that. What the Jews really needed was Aldo Raine and Tarantino. That way then the war would have gone much better. Scalped Nazis and Hitler dead. But oh wait, Aldo Raine has an Italian name, claims to be part Native American and comes from Tennessee, and Tarantino has an Italian name, claims to be part Native American and comes from Tennessee... So what the Jews really needeed was Quentin Tarantino and Quentin Tarantino.

And from a moral standpoint, it is utterly contemptible, and I feel the same way about Django Unchained. I know it's deliberately historically revisionist (obviously), and I know that one is supposed to look at the violence in the same way as in KB not as in RD,PF or JB, but that is a thin veil to hide behind Quentin, and one can easily see your glee and excitement at the hideous gore through it. When Eli Roth's character took a baseball bat to a Nazi's head I felt physical revulsion in a way I never have in a Tarantino film, it was truly horrible. And not in a good way. Said Eli Roth

“It’s almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. " 
That's enough from this onscreen and offscreen psycho I think.

The point at which the film really lost me was the end of the bierkeller scene, the conclusion of the standoff involving Aldo Raine, von Hammersmark and Wilhelm. The film had extensively belaboured the point that the latter was a new father, willing to let the others go alive and not altogether too bad. And then they shot him. I was so jolted out of the film that I think I started actually shaking my head. I just couldn't work out the direction of this movie's moral compass; do we cheer the Basterds on, do we fear them, do we take away the standard message that war is hell? What? And then I realised; Tarantino doesn't even know! If your film has actual Nazis in it and you can't work out which characters' side to be on, then your film has serious problems! What a mess. What a disappointment.




As an afterthought, I should point out that I thought Shoshanna the best female character Tarantino has written since Jackie Brown. She was the only character I truly liked in the film. And on this point I suppose I should also note that there were some terrific performances in this film, all faults are the director's!