Archive for Ben Affleck

Andante

Posted in FILM, MUSIC with tags , , , , , , , on July 15, 2014 by dcairns

vlcsnap-2014-07-14-22h11m55s215

I was curiously unenthused about seeing TO THE WONDER — my fear was that the bad reviews sounded, for once, fairly reasonable, and tied in with the least interesting aspects of TREE OF LIFE — the Sean Penn stuff, in other words. Reviewers complained that the characters and situations in TTW lacked specificity, and specificity is the very thing we are always telling our students at film school that they ought to go for. You only achieve the universal through the specific. Chaplin became the great everyman of his age by playing an eccentric tramp with specific costume, walk, mannerisms.

Yet Sean Penn never convinced as an architect because there was no detail about the job to suggest Terrence Malick had done any research or cared anything about architecture. Clearly he was just a stand-in for the filmmaker, only Malick didn’t want to make a film about a filmmaker but he wasn’t interested in anything else.

Seeing TO THE WONDER seemed like it might be unrewarding as an experience and writing about it probably wouldn’t be much fun either, if I found myself parroting other reviewers. Probably I should have gone anyway: I loved the boyhood stuff in TOL (and the dinosaurs — dinosaurs are always good) , and it’s always easier to surrender to a movie on the big screen.

vlcsnap-2014-07-14-22h05m38s254

On DVD, TO THE WONDER is resistible for all the reasons critics suggested — fading out the dialogue, Malick robs his scenes of what they’re about. The mannerism of women wading through cornfields touching the crops in a wistful way has hardened into cliché, although at least Rachel McAdams has the good grace to look awkward doing it.

When Malick fragmented his stories into glittering mosaics, I was still onboard, because he still HAD stories. I’m not certain TREE OF LIFE has a story but it has some strong scenes and juggles disparate elements in an original way and the emotion behind those evocations of childhood feels really strong and genuine to me. I guess TO THE WONDER should be evoking pangs of past relationships, but instead it felt like a bunch of beautiful shots — and we know Malick can produce beautiful shots, it feels like that’s easy to him, and it was a relief whenever he (rarely) offered up something that wasn’t stunning. It isn’t magic hour all the time, dude. That’s why they call it magic hour.

Malick has made enough great work to be allowed a failure. To other eyes, it may be a success. But I hope he gets back into narrative, and allowing scenes to play — a very useful weapon in one’s armoury.

vlcsnap-2014-07-14-22h07m07s122

The only fresh insight I flashed on was in a pre-coital moment with Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko scored to the Second (Andante) Movement from Shostakovich’s Second Piano Concerto, a favourite piece of mine. And as the dying notes sounded I flashed on how the Third (Allegro) Movement begins in a sort of dainty stampede which would be appropriate backing to a Keystone Kops chase. It was immediately clear than this film could not contain a speeded-up sex romp cut to this music, and Malick duly switched scene and score and didn’t Go There. A pity. A sense of the ridiculous is precisely what the film lacks.

It’s not absolutely necessary to me that everything be funny. But TO THE WONDER is clearly missing something, for all it’s sincerity and gorgeous photography and elegant music/sound design. It’s really lacking humanity and a feeling of reality. Plus leave the bloody curtains alone:

vlcsnap-2014-07-14-22h10m10s174

 

It’s Turkey Time

Posted in FILM, Television with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2013 by dcairns

The Late Show Blogathon is, and is not, over! We’re in extra time, where I run late-filmed-posts I couldn’t cram into the official week, and maybe a few guest blogs will still turn up. It’s the after-party, and it doesn’t stop until we say so!

The Blogathon master-post is no longer pinned to the top of the blog (using science), but it’s here. It links to every single post, here and elsewhere, that appeared in the blogathon. Or you can use the Late Show tag on the right of the main page to see all the posts from all four years of the blogathon. Some good stuff there! I’ll attempt to take stock and say something summative about this year’s jamboree soon.

vlcsnap-2013-11-25-13h56m38s126

REINDEER GAMES was called DECEPTION in the UK because they’d figured out that their original title confused people. It always sounded like a thriller to me, but Fiona reckons that name only would work for a comedy. But it kind of IS a comedy. Anyway, I was browsing a charity shop and saw a Polish DVD of this going for £1 so of course I bought it…

John Frankenheimer’s last theatrical feature stars Ben Affleck and was made for Dimension Films — there are a few hints of the kind of obsessive quest to hammer plot points home that distinguishes the Weinstein aesthetic — “Did you get it? DID YOU?” Frankenheimer’s late career renaissance — I think he saw it in those terms — is an odd beast. You have THE ISLAND OF DR MOREAU which is fabulously terrible in ever-changing ways, like looking into a kaleidoscope of shit. I love it dearly. Then you have RONIN which allows Frankenheimer to exercise his action movie chops in a film literally about nothing — chasing a suitcase, the most abstract MacGuffin imaginable. Then somebody decided to make it literal and boring and dub on a radio voice saying it was all about state secrets vital to the Northern Ireland peace process, which struck me as ridiculous and offensive, as if any cause could make all the cold-blooded mayhem we’ve just enjoyed in any way justifiable.

vlcsnap-2013-12-03-16h48m53s99

And then REINDEER GAMES, a Christmas-set wrong man heist movie tarnished by a clever-clever ending that’s really stupid-stupid, but which is a pretty agreeable time-waster and a summation of Frankenheimer’s cynical, empty, hardbitten and hardboiled worldview. There’s even a great Frankenheimer substitute in it, Dennis Farina’s blunt, world-weary casino manager, a washed-up pro with no patience for politicking, last seen riddled with bullets in the ruins of his trashed gambling den. “I can’t go back to Vegas,” is his recurrent lament. There’s a melancholy under Frankenheimer’s post-sixties nihilism, and however happily the stories turn out, what you remember is a dying fall.

Lots of Christmas imagery, starting with a bunch of dead Santas reddening the snow. This preps one for a bracing, nasty take on the festive season, but there’s a big mushy ending being cued up by Bob Weinstein somewhere in a back room at Dimension, so watch out! It’s a horrible betrayal of the film’s noir attitude. The movie works better when it’s contrasting the tough thriller angle with corny Xmas pop songs, and has Affleck singing The Little Drummer Boy to himself. I think he should have his own lyrics.

I have no gift to bring

Parump-a-pum-pum

Can barely lift this chin

Parump-a-pum-pum

Fun bad guys, less-skeezy variants on the gang in 52 PICK-UP — here we have Gary Sinise and Danny Trejo, who has “become a serious pain in the ass” since he “went to night school.” Charlize Theron sporting one of her early-career bad hairdos (see also THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE) — maybe it’s necessary to make us believe she might be the kind of woman who writes romantic letters to convicts.

vlcsnap-2013-12-03-16h46m43s51

Here’s the plot set-up — Affleck and James Frain are due for release from prison. Frain can’t wait to meet his sexy penpal, but he gets shivved before the big day. Affleck comes out and recognizes Charlize from Frain’s photos and kind of feels sorry for her, waiting in the snow for the convict who’s never going to come. And also, she’s rather attractive (she has a hat on so he can’t see the hairdo). So he pretends he’s the deceased Frain…

I would submit that, for all the film’s flaws, anybody who likes stories would kind of have to stick around after this point to see what’s going to happen…

Here’s one of Frankenheimer’s even-later works — an eight minute car commercial from the screenwriter of SE7EN, Andrew Kevin Walker. It’s rather fine.

Wait, there’s a director’s cut? Now I’ll have to see that — maybe next year.  Reindeer Games (The Director’s Cut) [Blu-ray]

More Blogathon!

Chandler Swain revisits Losey’s STEAMING. Here.

Scout Tafoya’s second blogathon post explored the last film to end them all, PP Pasolini’s positively final SALO, as well as taking in the last essay films of Lindsay Anderson and Dusan Makavejev. It’s quite a feast, if you can get past Signor Pasolini’s unappetizing entreesHere.

Affleck and the Argonauts

Posted in FILM, Politics with tags , , , , , on November 23, 2012 by dcairns

A very ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN image.

ARGO is a terrific thriller — Ben Affleck is a very competent director, and the script by relative newbie Chris Terrio organizes the suspense-building elements expertly. The performances are uniformly fine, with Affleck impressively un-starry, and Alan Arkin and John Goodman bringing the raw, undiluted entertainment.

Fiona loved it, I admired and enjoyed it, and then I got into a Twitter debate with Mark Cousins, who was impressed by the filmmaking but disgusted by the portrayal of Iran.

Here’s his article, which is recommended.

I basically take all his points. But the answer to the question, “Why this story? Why now?” has to in part be that the story involves Hollywood. I can’t imagine Hollywood passing up the chance to do a story in which Hollywood old-timers help rescue Americans from Iran. Hollywood practically invented narcissism, didn’t it? I’m sure if you check the records, you’ll find that Narcissus was Californian. And it’s a story about Iran in which Americans are in danger and other Americans rescue them. It’s a tradition, sadly, that Hollywood films about the rest of the world nearly always view it through the eyes of American characters. Oliver Stone made three films about Vietnam, and the two successful ones had American protagonists and no major Vietnamese characters. Did HEAVEN AND EARTH flop because the lead character was Vietnamese, because the actor playing her wasn’t a star, or because Stone couldn’t get into the head of a Vietnamese woman sufficiently to tell her story compellingly?

This, however, does fit in with one of Mark’s larger points, that the movie has followed the path of the commercially appealing storyline rather than the dictates of political conscience. Liberal Affleck has arguably made a film which ties in to the hawkish attitude towards Iran currently being sold to us. I think he has a point here.

I’m less certain of his criticism of the directorial technique: hand-held for Iran and tripod and dolly for America? Actually, the US scenes seem to depend largely on Steadicam for their movements, some of them very dynamic and interesting. And I don’t think the different techniques carry the moral judgement Mark seems to find: the handheld is clearly meant to evoke news footage, much of which Affleck quotes, and indeed also to create a feeling of edginess and danger, essential if we’re to feel anxiety for the trapped Americans. The characters in the US are safe and those in Iran are in constant danger: that seems a fair enough reason for a varied camera style, and it makes no overall judgement on the Iranian people, who are shot with the same techniques as the American embassy people.

I would accept, however, that the film’s attempts NOT to demonize all of Iran, while earnest, are insufficient. Seeing news footage of moronic yanks screaming for blood SHOULD make us reflect on current attitudes, and the inclusion of a sympathetic Iranian housemaid whose heroism is never noticed by the western characters is a step in the right direction, but feels tokenistic. Having her leave the country for welcoming Iraq is a somewhat crude irony, and leaves the viewer free to assume that any liberal-leaning Iranians must have packed their bags and emigrated by now, abandoning the country to rabid radical Islamic hysterics. The best gesture is making the angry old guy in the bazaar a bereaved father with a legitimate grudge against the west: a jeopardy-raising hostile native gains a bit of sympathy and respect. But I tend to agree that such welcome little gestures don’t go far enough in humanizing the Iranian people in the film.

Mark’s points about his own experiences in Iran are welcome — but it’s worth mentioning that he wasn’t there in 1980. Neither was I, and neither was Affleck, but we’ve seen the news footage. That footage only presents one aspect of the country, but I’m fairly convinced that it’s an aspect that did exist at the time. The revolution was a new thing, and it undoubtedly had a lot of enthusiastic supporters, who would have been more visible to an outsider than the regular people going about their business.

Joining the tweeting was Ehsan Khoshbakht, who brought me up to speed on the film’s many inaccuracies. These are harder to argue with because they’re matters of fact, not politics. The only way of dismissing them would be to say “It’s only a movie, it doesn’t matter,” which I’m not about to do. It’s interesting to speculate on the reasons the film distorts history, though, particularly in the animated intro that sets up the political backstory.

Ehsan’s tweets –

1) Mosaddegh wasn’t really secular. He couldn’t be at that time.

Here I’d say the film is guilty of distortion as it seeks to simplify, trying to find a way to contrast the outgoing leader with the later Ayatollah. But emphasizing this (false) distinction seems unnecessary, since you have the “secular” Shah in between anyway.

2) Bathing in milk was probably borrowed from yellow journals but of course they want to “justify” the story. The Queen was a part of corruption, but unlike what they claim nothing scandalous ever leaked about her life and she was the one who founded Kanoon which led to the emergence of filmmakers such as Kiarostami.

The movie seems to be uncritically recycling news gossip planted by Mosaddegh’s enemies in the run-up to the MI5 and CIA-sponsored coup that ousted him. Very bad.

3) They mention tortures, but don’t say SAVAK was trained by CIA & Mossad, their methods, still in practice.

That would be a good thing to mention, but I can understand the time constraints that caused them to omit it. I give them points for the intro, since they didn’t NEED to say that the whole mess was started by the CIA overthrowing the elected prime minister. In a story where the CIA play the role of heroes, that’s kind of an impressively complex stance to take.

4) Film never talks about the Marxist roots of the revolution (Islamic phase was a hi-jacking in last min).

This is kind of pure backstory, and wouldn’t alter the events in the film. While it’s fair to say that if you’re going to give a potted history lesson, it should include pertinent facts like this, but Affleck’s intro is constructed for a specific purpose — to set up the story we’re about to see.

5) and the US never gave any asylum to Shah (which could have caused, according to the film, the attack on the embassy); a film about saving allies & friends in which their most important ally & best friend, Shah, a dying man, wasn’t given the asylum or wasn’t saved. It was a turning point in modern politics because many of these so-called allies knew when the time comes they can’t trust the US.

He adds a helpful timeline via email ~

16 January 1979: The Shah leaves Iran and goes to Egypt. A very warm welcome from Anwar El-Sadat. [nobody attacks the Egyptian embassy in Tehran, nor the Morrocean embassy or Mexican embassy.]
22 October 1979: Carter reluctantly allows the dying Shah into the States to undergo a surgery (he had cancer). Shortly after that he was moved to a military hospital in Texas.
4 November 1979: Hostage crisis begins
15 December 1979: Shah left the States and went to, first Panama, and then Egypt again.
27 July 1980: Shah dies in exile.
20 January 1981: hostages were released

This seems crucial, and a bad-faith, cunning and deliberate distortion to make the CIA look good — yes, they may have been bad when they helped overthrow that other guy, but for present purposes the CIA are the cavalry riding to the rescue. (I can imagine Jimmy Carter not wanted to give succour to a torturing dictator, but the negative consequences of that decision could be considerable: promising safe havens to murdering scum is often the only way to get them out of office.)

The overall message is that ARGO, like any Hollywood film dealing with things that actually happened, should be approached armed with a sheaf of facts. It’s easy to spot the scenes where tension has been hyped up by improbably dramatic contrivance (very effectively), but not so easy to guard against the movie’s re-writing, re-casting and re-cutting of history.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 410 other followers