Ratcatcher
Perhaps
the Scot's feel they have it bad. Certainly, in the football the other
night, despite beating England at Wembley, they lost on aggregate. Is this
symptomatic of a nation? Certainly the movies which come from north of
the border have rarely strayed from the dour of late. From the reverse
love story of My Name Is Joe, to the gritty black humour of Orphans, inner
city Scotland is not portrayed as a bunch of laughs. And now we have the
oddest of movies, Ratcatcher, to continue this trend.
Set, like
East Is East, in the early seventies to the backdrop of the binman's strike
in Glasgow, Ratcatcher follows the story of a boy - James - who accidentally
causes the death of a friend. The film stays with him, and his family through
a series of events which finally allow him to come to terms with this event.
That is the plot in a nutshell, and as is apparent from the get go, this
is going to be a quiet character study. As is plain from the first twenty
minutes, it is going to be very, very quiet. And at about the half hour
mark, your eyelids are drooping. The first forty minutes of Ratcatcher
are potentially the dullest piece of film-making I have ever seen. It can
be argued that the silence, and the real lack of interest parallels the
effect on the boy of his unconfessed crime. That he hides himself away
from people, that he has difficulty in relating to people - but as I've
said before (Clockwatchers) that does not help your point if no-one is
interested in watching it.
So I hated
Ratcatcher then? Strangely no. It may have the dullest first half I have
seen, but then something happens. Occasionally in a film, there is a point
where everything gets put in context, the tone of the film shifts slightly
and suddenly the banal becomes the fascinating. Nowhere is this more apparent
than here. Halfway through the film, a local gang tease a kids prize mouse,
telling the kid (a bit of geek to all intents and purposes) that the mouse
can fly. This culminates in the child tying his mouse to a helium balloon
to let it fly to the moon. What follows is a minute of cinematic whimsy,
with the mouse flying off and reaching the moon populated by other space
mice. This fantasy sequence sets the harsh reality of the rest of the film
in sharp relief, and changes what was gritty realism, into something a
lot warmer, a place where no matter how desperate there is always imagination.
It is difficult to describe the effect, because the second half of the
film does not appear to do a lot more than the first half. Perhaps there
is a little bit more action, a contemporary soundtrack is evoked and we
do get a resolution of the story of sorts. But in the end, the second half
works because the tone of the film has changed.
I'll be
charitable here and say the above was wholly planned and due to the efforts
of Writer/Director Lynne Ramsey. She does a sterling effort in working
with her non-professional actors, especially the children. And as I said,
since that moment in the middle changes the film completely (and considerably
for the better), who is to say that it was not planned that way. Above
all, Ramsey displays a fine eye for detail, and it is the small touches
that make Ratcatcher work. The opening credits played over a small boy
twirling in net curtains. Something remembered from my childhood, and hence
highly evocative. Indeed this child is full of verve, a cheeky protagonist
that it is an absolute shock when it is he - not his dour mate - who dies.
This uses the audience knowledge to good effect - the audience know a child
will drown, it is the plot of the film, yet we are suprised to see which
one. Ramsey also uses cultural signifiers, Tom Jones, nit soap and the
aforementioned binman's strike to good use. And there is a theme of casual
violence running throught he film which just underlines the difficulty
of life in such a scenario.
Ratcatcher
is a very interesting debut film. It is challenging, and thought provoking,
whilst relying often on the power of its visuals. In the field of social
realist drama, there is often very little room for fantasy or aspiration,
and cinematography is often left on the back burner. Via the realist drama,
in tandem with some subtle imagery Ramsey shows a child isolated, reaching
out in various ways and eventually coming to some kind of peace with himself.
There is enough in this film to suggest that this is also a metaphor for
the whole inner city, as it moves to the suburbs, to escape a uncomfortable
past without forgetting it. Whilst Ratcatcher is very much a film of two
halves, it would be nice to think that Ramsey was literally learning her
trade on the job, as the second half is nigh on perfect. So when it comes
to scoring she gets a (5) for the first half and a (10) for the second
- giving us a nice rounded up average of (8).
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Kes and My Name Is Joe. Directed by a woman, not
Ken Loach.
Ravenous
There are
loads of really good jokes you can make in cannibal films. Such as "What's
eating you?", "I'll be having you for dinner later" and so on. Yet the
subject of cannibalism is, if not taboo, certainly one which could be seen
as slightly distasteful if horrific. If you couple that with reasons people
turn cannibal - usually because there is no other option, you always end
up with an odd mish-mash of horror, comedy and tragedy. How does one mix
these seemingly unfriendly bedfellows into a winning piece of cinema.
Don't ask
Antonia Bird. She had the unenviable task of being the third director to
helm Ravenous, a film which is in turns amusing, horrific and almost totally
covered with bad facial hair and blood. It is, as befits a film with so
much blood in it, an absolute mess. Its not a mess without merits, there
is fun to be gleaned from it, but whilst it may have had slightly loftier
pretentious it will rest amongst the failures of this year, as an Evil
Dead that did not have the guts to be one thing or the other. So what is
wrong with it? Fundamentally it just comes down to that one thing. It really
does not know what it wants to be. As horror it has too many jokes, and
hangs around too much trying to be psychologically disturbing. As a psychological
thriller there is too much blood, too much supernatural hokum and far too
many jokes. Yet as a comedy there are too many slow patches without any
jokes. As all three, well, there is no such thing as a supernatural horror
comedy psychological thriller. Or at least, there is now and its unlikely
we'll see another for a while.
Part of
the problem is in the characters. Guy Pearce, as Boyd (though it sounds
like everyone is calling him Boy all the way through), as our hero is monosyllabic
for the first half of the film. Perhaps this expresses his angst at his
cowardice which lead to inadvertent cannibalism which we see all to briefly
in flashback. More likely it showcases awkward silences and appalling facial
hair. When we are introduced to his comrades in the Fort, they are man
jack to a boy characitures that you wouldn't get away with in a teen comedy
(dopehead, religious nut, jock, drunk). We know with such a lack of work
that they're all going to die. And be eaten. And then Bobby Carlisle turns
up. And hams it up. Looking like Fagin, all whiskers and long coat, he
skips and mutters and then turns into Dracula as played by Noel Coward.
You know the shit has hit the fan when he rocks up in smoking jacket in
the suspiciously Transilvanian Sierra Nevada's (Czech Sierra Nevada's).
The films
swings perilously from this point, there is a nice little revelation, but
we know it will end with a showdown between Carlisle and Pearce. We know
Pearce will win. Nothing is left to surprise us - except perhaps the final
Itchy and Scratchy battle which is more amusing than dramatic and culminates
in possibly the funniest cinematic line of the year. It shouldn't though,
and there should be some drama involved in this final denouement. That
we get to hear the excellent theme tune again is a plus point, that we
feels entertained but badly is unfortunately the main problem.
There are
a lot of good ideas in Ravenous, and a few good actors. It is a mixture
of script and directing problems which sabotages an otherwise interesting
project. You cannot mix thriller and comedy. Horror and comedy can work,
but only if your happy with ploughing the Evil Dead furrow, which has been
well plowed and is well used for some of the final scenes. What eventually
sinks Ravenous is merely that it is a touch too long. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Alive hits the Evil Dead, with Noel Coward's Dracula
haunting the piece, like a strangely incessant Michael Nyman/Damon Albarn
composition.
Reindeer
Games
(Deception)
Deception
is a lousy name for a movie. It tells you nothing about what is going on,
what is supposed to happen or about the settings. On the other hand Reindeer
Games is a fantastic name for a film, it is intriguing, lays few hints
about what the film is about but at least makes you look at the synopsis.
Since Deception on the first hand was a bit of a flop in the States, and
on the second hand is released in the middle of summer rather than the
more appropriate Christmas when it is set, Dimension Films (the bastard
offspring of Miramax) plumped for the more generic title. And whilst the
title lets the film down, you also have to wonder whether it really deserved
the better title - because it really isn’t all that good.
We are back
in so bad its amusing territory in a film which is incompetently plotted,
badly scripted and shot with all the flair of Mr Magoo. Infact that last
point is more than just a cheap crack. John Frankenheimer - without a doubt
one of the worst directors working in Hollywood these days - shoots Reindeer
Games like his eyesight his failing. What may have been a stylistic experiment
turns into a eye doctors dream, this is the most myopic picture ever released.
No-one is ever more than two yards away from the camera and this shooting
style merely blows up the faces of our lead characters and exposes the
vast vista’s of Ben Affleck’s chin. Man, you could go ski-ing on it.
So to the
acting. Not only does the film saddle Affleck’s character Rudy (Reindeer
Games reference one) with possibly the most inconsequential narration,
he also has been given very little to work with in the likability stakes.
After all, he plays an ex-con who leaves prison and shags his dead cellmates
girlfriend for the crack (literally). Perhaps the machinations of the fag
packet plot that is then dumped upon him is supposed to make us sympathise,
but Affleck himself really never convinces. Of course he towers above the
two other major principles. Charlize Theron (where did she get that name
from) is obviously here as a representative of the Nordic Forestry Board.
She flashes her toothy grin at us believing she is beguiling, instead one
of her front teeth is gargantuan and so we know that in the scheme of things
these movies always have a femme fatale. Except here, Theron is not so
much a Femme Fatale as a Femme Mildly Annoying. She acts worse than one
of the worst actors peddling his gear in Hollywood today, though is not
saddled with stupid name and look that Gary Sinise is. For some reason
this uber-baddie goes by the moniker of Monster and has decided to rock
the Chris Rea look. And you can’t really take him seriously when he might
break into Auberge at any minute.
So to the
plot. Rudy’s best mate gets knifed in prison the day before he was supposed
to get out. So Rudy pretends to be him to get in some post-prison heterosexual
shags. Soon turns that her brother Monster wants his expertise (not his,
his cell mates) in robbing a half arsed casino in the middle of nowhere
on Christmas Eve. Firstly none of the above is strictly true, no-one is
who they say they are and yet no-one appears to have any good reason for
these constant confusions (or some say Deceptions). Of course Rudy knows
nothing about said casino - which is only one of the several million so
called plot twists in this stab at confusing its own audience with things
which don’t make any sense. It is possible that this was meant to be a
blackly comic thriller, but since the gags are so lousy you are restricted
to laughing at the ludicrousness of the whole affair. Luckily it is all
ludicrous and you will get more than a few guffaws in. But it isn’t actually
any good.
Perhaps
there was something in the original script which could have been teased
into a half decent comic thriller. The plot must have remained constant
from the start, so you get the feeling that it is only with the lack of
a half decent wisecracking lead, any decent lines and direction which knows
how to display a light touch had scuppered it. Its been snuck out mid-summer
and in a lot of ways is a perfect film to catch before the excesses of
the summer season. It may make you look more kindly upon said films - which
will have equally large plot-holes - at least they will have good stunts.
Sinise should be proud that he has now starred in the two worst films of
the year, but sadly the best thing about Reindeer Games is its title, and
in this country that has not even survived. (3)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Die Hard (for Christmas setting) whams into a number
of Hitchcock thrillers destroying each and every one of them in a half
arsed Ronin style car chase through nowhere. Oh, its got snow in it so
I suppose you can throw Fargo into the mix. This is not meant as an insult
to any of the above films - except perhaps Ronin - another John Frankenheimer
mess.
Requiem
For A Dream
Who knows
what makes a good film? There are plenty of single items which I can tell
you right now will have you scuppered from square one. Religious horror
thrillers are poor, dogs as lead characters and of course Denzel Washington
will all destroy the chances of your project reaching anything like greatness.
But what makes a film good. Drug movies are rarely any good - see Jesus’
Son for a further example of that. Overboard visual stylings usually suggest
that the director is bereft of ideas. And I have never been overly keen
on films adapted from books. So why do I really really like Requiem For
A Dream - which has all the above in spades?
Cinema need
be uplifting to be any good, but there is a barrier presented by worthy
films which restrict them getting to an audience. Given the choice of seeing
something fun or something important fun will nearly always win. Well Requiem
For A Dream is certainly not fun, but is intensely watchable. The film
displays parallel stories of various addictions - most notably Ellen Burstyn’s
addiction to diet pills and Jared Leto’s descent into infection. Unlike
nearly all “drug” films however it is the nature of addiction the film
is about, and there is little in the way of judgement on the drugs themselves.
The film cleverly draws in images from excessive consumption to show how
addiction is perhaps more an upshot from capitalist society than an inherent
trait.
Darren Aronfsky’s
follow up to - what was my opinion the over-rated - Pi is a larger budget
extrapolation of some of the visual techniques used in that film. He certainly
has a rein on what is disconcerting, both visually and in tandem with his
regular music director Clint Mansell. Indeed the score is intensely important
in this film, at terms harsh and dreamy, it combines with some of the over
the top visuals to create momentum and a oneness between the various strains
of the story. Whilst Ellen Burstyn’s story is the most visually over the
top, Aronfsky also manages to restrain himself in for the slightly more
straight narrative of Jared Leto and his friends.
The music
and story combine to create a very melancholy whole, which befits the doomed
arcs all these characters go through. There are moments of hope before
we get to the moments of desperation, and when we hit those moments of
desperation it feels correct. These characters do not deserve to suffer,
but in the world view presented by the film there is the idea that in the
end we will all suffer of addiction of a sort. Therefore it is unclear
whether Ellen Burstyn’s eventual end is strictly due to the diet pills
or an addiction to television. It is a tremendous performance from her,
and all the performances are good - Leto, Jennifer Connelly and Marlon
Wayans. And whilst Aronfsky’s ending may seem trite, and overly arty, it
is nevertheless a powerful way of tying the four disparate yet connected
stories together.
Requiem
For A Dream is a pretentious movie, but its pretensions are luckily fulfilled
by its execution. There is no denying Aronfsky’s visual flair, or his ability
to cut and mix up disturbing images - many people have complained of overload
on that front. I do not see it as overload - as I did with Pi - but what
is more impressive is the way he has arranged his story and characters
to play a sympathetic morality play - albeit one with no moral judgements.
Whilst Requiem For A Dream is not perfect (I believe it contains one of
the worst continuity errors I have ever seen) this tale of addiction, family
and freaky fridges is a harrowing if ultimately worthwhile experience.
(8)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: The Monkee’s Head hits Trainspotting - with the Brodsky
Quartet playing on the side.
Ressources
Humaines
I hate the
sobriquet Human Resources. Personnel was bad enough, but at least their
name suggested they might treat you as a person - even if it was a person
in hell. (In reality nearly all personnel departments I have dealt with
have been particularly bad at being personal. You’ll never get a letter
from anyone in a personnel department signed by the person it says. PP
was invented for them). Anyway, its nice to see that its not just the English
speaking world whose workers have to put up with being treated as a resource.
And it is not just the English speaking world who has issues with this
too.
Ressources
Humaines is the debut film of Laurent Cantet, and is - in a word - fantastic.
A piece of social realism from the Ken Loach school, but one which does
not preach, have too much of a soapbox to shout about things. One that
strictly gets on with telling its simple yet emotionally deep story. Frank
is a student on a placement in the local factory. The factory his father
works in. Frank works in personnel, and is given a simple task which he
sets about with gusto. He is seen as management, his father is a worker.
But when his results are used to justify job losses, including his fathers,
Frank sees a different side.
A film about
labour relations then. Well there’s an awful lot of unloved entries in
that canon in Russian cinema between 1930 and 1990. And the story described
above makes it seem like a simple tale of the naïve student having
to examine his principles. Which it is partially, but it is also a much
deeper exploration of class, shame and the future of France. Which a pretty
tall order for a debut film, and a film which only has one experienced
actor in it. Improvised around a taut plotline, Ressources Humaines uses
those very resources - ie it human element to craft a deep view of what
it means to be of a certain economic class - or more precisely a working
class, and how the next generation views it. Frank’s parents have made
sacrifices to get him where he is, and are awfully proud of him. What they
do not expect, or know how to handle, is that he is proud of them and his
heritage.
The film
is edited within a whisker of its life, there is no extraneous fat here.
Just the story and the relationships. Where other films may have added
a subplot, Ressources Humaines adds a few extra characters - and fleshes
them out. Most interestingly though, the film is very non-judgemental.
Whilst it deplores the management ethics, it also makes you feel uncomfortable
about strongarm Unionism. It discusses the pros and cons of an enforced
35 working week much better than any documentary. And it ends not with
a neat resolution but a question, one for the whole audience to answer
not just about the characters in the film but their own lives.
Ressources
Humaines is the best film of its type that I have seen since My Name Is
Joe - and whilst nowhere near as dramatic or pessimistic as that film,
it captures the mundanity of real life with the joys of it. It makes pains
to present an even handed argument, and not to patronize its working class
- or to be fair - middle class characters. A film whose subject matter
may initially seem very small has no trouble capturing the audience for
its 100 minutes, and making them empathise and think for a whole lot longer.
All personnel departments should see it.(9)
IF THIS
FILM WAS A CAR CRASH: Ken Loach’s Riff-Raff smacking a French film of course.
It has the small town factory working bits of L’Humanite - without the
long drawn out police bit. A minor masterpiece.
Ride
With The Devil
I'm not
a big country boy. I grew in in the cusp of London, the edge of suburbia
where the countryside nestles with the town. I suppose I always associated
the countryside with the bad things in life. The smells, well that was
cow shit. Any form of sport which I was invariably lousy at, took place
on a field, surrounded by countryside. Long walks, equals countryside and
being a bit of the wee side I always had trouble with stiles, and farmers
chasing me "orf their land". The city on the other hand represented a myriad
of opportunities. Shops, theatres, cinemas, even something as simple as
rivers with proper crossings over them (I have a long, tedious and obviously
psychologically damaging story about falling in what can best be called
a brook at a very young age which has brought this to the fore). Nope,
I have no dreams of retiring to the country, the city is where I'll stay.
Why mention
all this in a review of Ride With The Devil? Well, Ang Lee's follow up
to The Ice Storm yet again uses the countryside as a major motif. As many
foreign directors do (foreign meaning non-American here) he has come across
a section of landscape in the US and made it his own. This time we are
in the Mid-West, Missouri, a land which appears to all intents and purposes
to have much the same foliage and climate as Hertfordshire in mid winter.
This was just as well, because Ride With The Devil does not have a lot
else in it for me to identify with. The US Civil War is both alien and
slightly dull to me, and I am not a great lover of war films anyway. Couple
this with Ang Lee's trademark detachment from his work, and it is easy
to see why Ride With The Devil did not set the cinema's alight on its release.
Which is a pity because there is actually a lot to like about it.
Having only
seen a couple of Ang Lee films, I can already guess up to some point what
I am going to get. First and foremost I will be looking for sumptuous cinematography.
Well, that box is ticked nicely here, from his long tracking shots of the
snow covered forests, to the cavalry charges and small battles. Ride With
The Devil is lovely to look at, and also lovely to listen to. The film
is set up as an epic story of American history and much of that is done
by sweeping strings, contrasted with simplistic banjo pickings. As in The
Ice Storm the soundtrack is used extensively to create moods. Also, as
in the Ice Storm, Lee has taken the route of exploring an intimate group
of characters, their reaction to their tint place in history, and then
used this to comment on the era. And like in The Ice Storm he is pretty
successful in doing this.
The success
in summing up his small part of history, and the story of the guerilla
war fought by the South is one that has hithertoo been left pretty much
alone, does not necessarily translate into a hugely successful film. The
main narrative drive here rests on Tobey Maguire, an Ice Storm alumni,
and a slightly uncomfortable lead character. Maguire has a voice that has
not quite decided if it has broken, and whilst this may be used to emphasize
his youth (he ends the film aged 19 still) to start off with he is rather
difficult to like. This changes, the part grows with its hair, but there
is always the feeling that the action off might be a bit more exciting.
The romantic centrepiece is between Skeet Ulrich and Jewel - not Maguire,
and Maguire never really gets into the thick of things. This is perhaps
part of Ang Lee's idea, but it makes for slightly dull viewing.
Luckily
Lee is very good at juggling relationships and ideologies. Our token bad
guy (played by a wicked psycopathic Jonathon Rhys Myers) really is just
a nasty piece of work. He may exist to stop us identifying with the Southern
cause, these are after all the losers we are watching. Nevertheless it
soon becomes clear he is in it merely for the killing, and this is nicely
contrasted with our hero who is in it due to loyalty - until all those
he has been loyal to die. The most interesting aspect of the film is the
idea of being on the wrong side, on losing and on the reasons people pick
to fight. When compared to the human cost, people slowly change - and this
is illustrated beautifully both by Maguire and by Jeffery Wright's free
slave. A man freed by his owner, but still indebted due to friendship and
loyalty.
Ride With
The Devil is that most curious of beasts, a film much better in retrospect
than while you watch it. Truth is, despite the sumptuous visuals and settings,
the story is rather low key. The end is nice, leaving an interesting loose
end for moral reasons, and throughout the film many ideas are broached.
Afterwards what you remember are the moods created, and the many questions
asked. As entertainment, Ride With The Devil is merely average, but as
a philosophical and politcal jumping off point works really rather well.
(7)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Once Upon A Time In America with The Ice Storm.
Simple as that.
Rosetta
We never
find out her surname. She remains resolutely Rosetta throughout the entire
ninety entirely bleak minutes. But I for one derived the merest of smiles
from thinking of her as part of the Stone family. It would certainly be
in character, this additional piece of ridicule to make her already tawdry
and terrible life just that little bit worse.
Whatever
the surname, Rosetta is a bleak, uncompromising and cold portrayal of a
hugely disaffected teenage. Been there? Seen it? Well, yes and no. Whilst
angst movies about teens are ten a penny, Rosetta is still a genuine original.
Partially this comes out of its premise; Rosetta is dying to get a job.
But mainly this comes out of the utter conviction shown by both the filmmakers
and the lead actress - Emilie Dequenne. Whilst nothing much happens, and
what does happen is generally either inconsequential or unpleasant, Rosetta
continues with a pacing almost all of its own.
Rosetta
is a Belgian film, and when I said pacing almost of its own that is because
it does share an odd rhythm at least with the German movie Lola Rente (Run
Lola Run). Whilst that film was all flashy visuals, clever narrative tricks
and sparkling metaphysical debate - Rosetta relies on merely the one trick
to be visually interesting. It is completely hand held. But Rosetta runs,
almost as much as Lola, and running with a handheld camera is liable to
create seasickness in an audience. In which case you apply the standard
trick to deal with seasickness - i.e. keep your eyes on the fixed point
- in this case the character of Rosetta herself. She appears in ever scene,
nearly every moment of this film and is captivating in her attempts to
escape misery.
Not a lot
happens in Rosetta. She gets fired; she tries to find another job. Gets
one, gets fired - again not her fault. She has stumbling tentative steps
towards a boy, gets him fired and takes over his job. All around a desperate
attempt to improve her sordid background of a pathetic, alcoholic mother
who turns tricks for booze in their caravan. There is a shed load of back-story
here that is just not referred to. There are a number of contexts in which
to take the central performance, but very few of these are alluded to.
Themes of love, honour and friendship snake through the film never quite
taking hold - because plain and simply there are few conclusions to be
taken from a film like this. This is a slice of a particularly bleak life,
where a young girls hope is continually battered down until the personally
tragic conclusion.
With its
small cast, and tight focus, Rosetta is often rather a dull movie. There
is very little humour in the film, and what there is relies on anachronism
and an equally dry humour from the viewer. The tedium is rammed down your
throat and is not stylistically redeemed in any way. In a lot of ways this
was similar to Ratchatcher from last year, at least the first half which
I found terribly inconsequential. It has pace, and a compelling central
character and also a slightly better ending than Ratchatcher - but lacks
the cinematic beauty of that film. This may well be intentional, but does
leave the viewer only one option if the wish to stay the course of the
film. That is of liking the lead character.
Rosetta
could have been appalling. As it is, what you get is a bleak, uncompromising
view of what remains of a young girl hope, pride and self-esteem being
put through the wringer. A tragedy with the potential for redemption -
or more likely an amazing calling card for Emilie Dequenne's acting career.
Whatever, watching Rosetta is uncomfortable, and you could end up on the
verge of sleep in the middle of the film. That said, it is a rewardingly
small,
definitely not beautiful piece of cinema. There is always someone worse
off than you are - and Rosetta is about her. She need to lighten up, stop
being so mired by her problems and maybe try some drugs. Then she would
be Rosetta Stoned. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Kes, Poor Cow, you know the score.
Run
Lola Run
(Lola Rente)
Well aren't
we being Mr Cosmopolitan. (And I don't mean Chocolate, Strawberry and Vanilla
here - m'na m'na). Spanish, Japanese and now a German film - anyone would
think I had picked up a new set of reading glasses. I've often wondered
what they do in subtitled 3-D films, do the words leap out at you too,
or remain resolutely mid-distanced, with the old rubber shark in Jaws leaping
over it. Well, luckily, this German effort was not in 3-D - though that
would not have necessarily harmed the film - as every other imaginable
technique is flung at the screen. But Run Lola Run is pretty much what
it says on the box, its a film about a woman called Lola, well, running.
And they say it twice because she does it a lot.
The action
movie is often seen as a purely American beast. It is true that there are
not a lot of Middle European die hards out there (though Hong Kong occasionally
churns out the odd actioner). The point is, we don't get to see them because
it is believed that the two audiences do not, in general overlap. Which
m,ay be true, but it does not actually make that much sense. After all,
the one thing an action film does not have much of in general is dialogue.
Hence, not too many distracting subtitles. Run Lola Run has used this very
much to its advantage, that and a few other tricks, so that though it is
in German, this is probably the easiest transition for a foreign language
film.
Put simply,
Run Lola Run is an allternate endings movie, a bit like Sliding Doors but
less on the romantic comedy side, and more on the gangster, thriller. Simply,
Lola's boyfriend has lost 100,000 Marks. She has 20 minutes to rustle up
said cash before he goes and robs a supermarket. We then see, unfolding,
the outcome of her plan - three times, depending on what happens as she
leaves - ie how she reacts to a barking dog. Coupled with some relentless
techno, flashy (almost over the top visuals), and some nice tricks this
is the relentless road we follow Lola running down. And it is a very enjoyable
80 minute ride through this twenty somethings life, and briefly the lives
of others.
A simple
premise, the repetative storyline and an attractive lead character is at
the heart of the film, and one would be tempted to say that this is the
secret to this film. It would be untrue however, the secret of Run Lola
Run is all in its packaging. The constant loud music, the montage secquences,
the flashes from 16mm to video to montage even to animation, coupled with
some great action sequences are really what suck you in. The use of obvious
clock face imagery, the slightly different repetition and the low level
philosophical idea that ever moment decsions are made beyond our control
which completely change our lives. So the film gives you enough to think
about, while you are being distracted.
That is
not to say that the good solid story and premise do not make the film work.
If you do not have a solid foundation, any amount of technical camera trickery
will not give you a film. However it is the simplicity of the plot, which
allows the film to then "muck about". That and, as Isaid, a very arresting
lead in Lola, with her red hair, her constant motion, and palpable desperation
as she tries to do the right thing. Of course, with so many things going
on, its not surprising that some things fall flat. The bed based philsophical
discussions which bookend each of the three attempts are weighty and frankly
dull. The techno is not cutting edge, can get rather repetative and - well
is of pretty low quality. And the final, successful attempt, is based on
coincidence and chance - which may well be the theme of the movie, but
nevertheless makes the overall conclusion less satisfying.
Run Lola
Run, for all its flaws, is a hell of a lot of fun - and you tend not to
get to say things like that about German films. Moreover, it is different,
and make Hollywood action films look exceeding bloated in comparison. Cheap,
cheerful but packed full of ideas, it has probably the best female lead
role of the year, and an actress to match. I won't be cheesy and tell you
to Run to see RLR, but a brisk walk would probably satisfy. Its a good
fun film. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Sliding Doors, meets the Long Kiss Goodnight and
Nick Of Time (little seen Johnny Depp actioner told in real time a while
back). In German.
Rushmore
If there
is one comic actor who will attract me to a project more than any other,
it would have to be Bill Murray. Maybe its because he was in the right
place at the right time, one of the first films I really remember actively
liking (as opposed to just enjoying because I was being taken to the movies)
was Ghostbusters. And I remember as a child being allowed to stay up with
my Dad to watch Stripes, which was possibly my favourite film for five
years. Its probably one of the few tastes I share with my father (his admiration
for Dennis Leary has admittedly waned in me since HE HAS NEVER BEEN IN
A GOOD MOVIE). Yet he has always seemed criminally under-rated, a film
limps out every other year - not always a comedy. That last fact may be
of his devising, since unlike many American comedians (stand up Mssrs Chase
and Ackroyd), Murray's comic persona is one built on contradictions. Supremely
confident, yet sad. And so there was no way I was going to miss Rushmore.
Murray is
by no means the star of Rushmore, but I cannot think of another actor who
could make his role work. A Vietnam vet, frustrated by his idiot children,
his tedious life and looking for something to base his life on. He sees
some of himself in young Max, student of Rushmore Private School. Max is
a lousy student, but throws himself to every extra-curicular activity that
exists, and invents those that don't. What these two have in common is
energy, enthusiasm for new things - but perhaps the lack of what the real
world would call success. Then what they have in common is obsessive love
for Miss Cross, a teacher at Rushmore.
Rushmore
is a truly individual film. A blackish comedy about obsession and unlikely
friendship, it does not always make easy watching. It also is tremendously
unpredictable. The films shifts from high comedy, to almost a stalking
thriller with bizarre alacrity. You never really know where you stand until
the end, which leaves you marvelling at the subtlety of the script - which
drags you to the edge many times. Max, played expertly by Jason Schellenberg,
is a grotesque creation, arrogant, obsessive, potentially psychotic yet
he is always watchable. Equally Murray's character goes into a complete
withdrawl - via childishness into becoming almost a vagrant. Yet his despair
is achingly portrayed by Murray's hangdog looks where the vestiges of dignity
just highlight how little dignity was there in the first place. Finally
Olivia Williams' Miss Cross is a similarily subtle creation, patient, understanding
but deeply obsessed herself with a dead husband.
As you've
probably guessed, Rushmore is a film about obsession. Fundamentally how
obsession can get plays written, the most outlandish of set designs done
(check Max's Serpico) and even get Aquarium's built. However when you employ
obsession in a relationship, it does not work - you lack the objectivity
to notice that you are actually scaring off the object of your obsession.
Its a nicely illustrated moral, along with the one that friendships can
spring from anywhere and are well worth preserving. That said - Rushmore
is more than just a couple of morals strung together. It is also very funny
in places. It also has the best (coincidentally folky) soundtrack since
Good Will Hunting. Indeed, there is a degree of similarities between Good
Will Hunting and Rushmore - which is nicely dealt with in the opening dream
sequence. In a lot of ways, this is the anti-Good Will Hunting, contrasting
a genius slacker with an over-ambitious oaf. And both Will and Max loved
English women.
Rushmore
is not without its faults. It is easy to see how a member of the audience
could start to dislike Max intensely as he is not the most empathic of
creations. The wavering from black comedy to pathos is also sometimes a
touch clumsy. That said the film is refreshingly original and will stick
in your memory a lot longer than most films you see. And Bill Murray is
on top of his form, older, not wiser. Most importantly it is a film you
should go and see - just to make your own mind up. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Quick Change (hideously underated Bill Murray directed
movie) slaps into the Graduate whilst Good Will Hunting (and its soundtrack)
waltz on by gawking.
