The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is a bleak film, focusing more on character than action, setting up the franchise’s final installment.

The film finds Katniss Everdeen recovering in District 13 in the wake of the events of Catching Fire. She is distraught about Peeta’s capture by the Capital; however, Plutarch Heavensbee and President Alma Coin (the leader of the rebellion) desperately need her help. Right now is the moment of rebellion that District 13 has been waiting for, ever since their initial rebellion was quelled over seventy-five years ago. Katniss’s actions at The Hunger Games have inspired a nation. The rebels need her to be their symbol of revolt, inciting the nation to rise up together against the Captial.

First thing, let us call Mockingjay – Part 1 what it really is: a narrative and creative abomination in the name of additional profits (akin to splitting The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn into two parts even though the story does not really support two full narrative films). The Harry Potter series split its final book (The Deathly Hallows) into two films, starting this trend – the difference between The Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn and now Mockingjay, however, is that there was enough substantial story and character to make two films. Here there is not.

Calling the film an abomination is harsh. The problem is that the film essentially serves at the first act of the final chapter; yet, the filmmakers (including director Francis Lawrence) need to fill two hours with material, when really only about thirty to forty minutes is essential (or even needed). Thus, the film is primarily a showcase of the characters sitting around, grinding out time until the action really begins (in the next film). For the audience, this makes for a less than interesting film overall, but it still has its engaging moments.

The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 plays as much more of a character piece as compared to the continuous action of Part 2. Mockingjay – Part 1 tries to follow a similar path, as the narrative focuses on Katniss’s internal struggle with being the face of the rebellion, but there does not seem to be any narrative momentum. By comparison, part 1 of The Deathly Hallows saw Harry and company searching for horcruxes and the meaning of the Deathly Hallows. The film has a narrative structure and character development. It works as a standalone film (in as much as a sequel can), while also setting up the final film. Mockingjay – Part 1 is initially about Katniss becoming the face of the rebellion, which she does without much struggle. Then, the film seems to become about the recovery of Peeta. The problem with the second narrative piece is that Katniss is not involved in the action.

One of the big problems with this film series as a whole is that Katniss seems to always be sidelined. Even as the face of the rebellion, she is not directly involved in the rebellion planning or action. She is just propaganda. It might have been interesting for the film to really take a deep look at the emotional and psychological toll being a symbol takes on Katniss, being removed from the real action, just rolled out to make appearances for moral, seeing those actually fighting dying around her. It does this to a minor degree, and those moments are compelling; but, this was never going to be that kind of film – a character piece, built on performance and dramatic moments. Lawrence still wants to make a sci-fi action adventure, like the first two films, but there is just not that much for anyone to really do.

Structurally, Mockingjay – Part 1 has a number of things that do not work as well as they probably should. Right off, the film feels completely disconnected from Catching Fire, as if it were unrelated. The characters and tone are totally different. We learn that some period of time has passed between the end of Catching Fire and the beginning of Mockingjay, but it is very disorienting (especially because I just re-watched Catching Fire before seeing this). Lawrence certainly had the narrative time to transition the narrative to District 13, but instead the film begins clumsily. Lawrence also had the time to focus more on supporting characters, but no one is really given much to do dramatically. Katniss is the only character that has significant character moments (seeing the carnage that the Capital brought upon District 12 and her realization that Peeta was brutally tortured while being held in the Capital). Again, most of the film’s issues seem to arise from there not being enough to sustain a full narrative feature.

There are things that do work too. Katniss’s emotional moments are effective and even moving. Lawrence does a good job creating a world that looks and feels very bleak. District 13 is reminiscent of the style of the film 1984 (based on George Orwell’s novel) – it is a bit ironic that the rebels fighting for freedom seem to live in a highly structured world (seemingly void of real personal freedom and personality). The few moments of action are engaging as well. Lawrence even creates some tension when the team goes to retrieve the victors from the Capital.

Mockingjay is a sufficient setup for Mockingjay – Part 2, but it is bloated and does not work as a standalone film. Katniss is not even given a real dramatic journey in the film. Its biggest fault is that it feels overly long, slow and even boring in parts, because it is essentially a one act piece stretched to fill two hours. Lawrence does not do enough with the characters or feature enough action to fully engage the audience for the film’s runtime. Yet, all that said, the stage is set for Part 2, which seems like it will be a rewarding film experience (finally); and thus, Mockingjay – Part does ultimately serve its purpose (sloppily).

Now for something minor that I noticed that does not really effect the film’s overall quality at all, it just bugged me. The blocking of the film crew within the film (there to capture moments of Katniss reacting to stuff to use for the rebellion’s propaganda machine) is often fairly terrible. The cameramen are in each other’s shots. The director even walks in front of one of the cameramen at one point. They miss many crucial shots of Katniss emoting and in action (and so on). It is really no big deal; it just bothered me. They are touted as being the Capital’s best crew, but seemed incompetent.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Francis Lawrence made a good film with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. With Mockingjay – Part 1, he is at a bit of a disadvantage, as it is clear there is not enough material to fill two films. That said, he does a good enough job (I guess). He gets good performances and the few action scenes work well. It is just disappointing that there is not more character moments to go around and that the film is not more efficiently structured (instead of feeling a bit tedious). I am looking forward to seeing Mockingjay – Part 2. I imagine it is much more action packed and that Katniss, finally, is involved in the primary action both emotionally and physically.

Aesthetically, Mockingjay – Part 1 is grim. The film mostly takes place in a somewhat soulless and barren bunker or amongst the rubble of destroyed towns. Jo Willems’s cinematography is fairly straightforward, working with Philip Messina’s production design to create this dreary world, seemingly almost void of color. It works narratively, but I miss the flare the first two films had in their design style. James Newton Howard’s score works well, supporting the dramatic moments (but it is overshadowed by the great soundtrack that Lorde put together).

The cast is good overall, but dramatically speaking there is very little for most of them to do. Natalie Dormer has her usual rambunctiousness about her, which works well with her character (the filmmaker Cressida). Elizabeth Banks has some fun moments as Effie, adjusting to a world without style and color. Sam Claflin is good as Finnick, seemingly playing a man broken by the games (though, it feels a bit out of character given where the audience left him in Catching Fire). Julianne Moore is very calm and calculating as President Alam Coin, very restrained. It works. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems a bit disinterested as Plutarch Heavensbee, probably because he has almost nothing of substance to do in the film. Donald Sutherland plays President Snow with a lot of flare and guile, enjoying the villainy of the character. Woody Harrelson, too, seems bored as he spends the film standing around, aside from a few lines of dialog. Liam Hemsworth probably has the most screen time in this film of any in the series so far, and yet he remains unengaging. Josh Hutcherson is quite good as Peeta, showcasing the mental and physical toll being a prisoner of the Capital is taking on him (he looks like he is dying, slowly wasting away). I just wonder why the film never gives Johanna (especially when you have Jena Malone, who is fantastic in the role) or Annie any screen time while they were captive (even if it were just in the background). It is an odd choice to single out Peeta as the only visible ‘traitor’, while leaving the others to merely be referred to as similarly traitors for doing the same thing. Filmmaking is about showing more than telling (or at least it should be). Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Katniss. She conveys the pain and internal struggle that she suffers through very well. It is clear that she is on the breaking point. (Much like the audience, I am sure) Katniss is tired of being left out. The film is moving in some places and ultimately succeeds dramatically solely because of her performance (as structurally it is pretty poor).

Summary & score: It is difficult to rate The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 because it is not really a narrative film (in that it does not really have its own story to tell or a complete character journey). It is merely just act one. Seemingly, it was never meant to be more. Thus, to really give this film a score I need to see how it plays in relation to Part 2, as presumably they are really two piece of one epic film. As it is, it only works insomuch as Jennifer Lawrence gives a very good performance, the action is engaging and some of the visuals are compelling. Large portions of the film, however, are uninteresting, as characters and viewers sit around waiting for the action to start. It was completely unnecessary for Mockingjay to be split into two films; thusly, this film exists solely to make additional money, not to serve a narrative need – and that is unfortunate for fans of the series. 5/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is entertaining, but feels incomplete. The film picks up where its predecessor The Hunger Games left off: Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark won the 74^th Hunger Games, which has incited a swelling of rebellion in the twelve districts – especially those in constant strife. Katniss is now under pressure by the President to act her part and not encourage further revolution. But the president soon realizes that she is far too dangerous to live, as are the other former champions. Thus, for the 75^th Hunger Games, he decides that the tributes from each district will be made up of former winners, as a means to eliminate their threat to his power.

While I liked The Hunger Games overall, much of my problem with the film came from Katniss never really being faced with a truly difficult choice. Narratively and dramatically speaking, everything was just too easy for her (and on her). And more or less the same is true in Catching Fire. Katniss is still the main character, but much of the more interesting narrative elements seem to be taking place behind the scenes without her involvement or knowledge, which leaves the film feeling like just a basic remake of the first film (only, supposedly with higher stakes because this time all the tributes are trained killers).

Overall, Catching Fire does have more dramatically poignant moments, however. This is true particularly of Katniss’s visit to District 11 to pay tribute to Thresh and Rue. The relationships between characters feel more organic and steeped in reality than just emotionally dramatic for the sake of appealing to their targeted audience of youth adults (which has certainly grown substantially to include mostly all filmgoers). This is something that works well for the film. The audience actually cares about these characters this time around, which only heightens the tension throughout (though, the writers still clearly do not really know what to do with Gale and his relationship with Katniss – the audience sees them kiss and so on but really there is nothing of substance for them to care about in the actual narrative, while Katniss’s relationship with Peeta is much more developed and believable). In the first film, all the other tributes were also basically throwaway characters, with only Rue meaning anything – and that is solely due to Katniss caring about her. This time around, a number of the other tributes are actually given their own dramatic character moments that the audience can latch onto, take stock in, and relate to. Again, what works much better in this film is that outside of Katniss the audience is actually invested in other characters this time.

And yet Catching Fire cannot overcome its big story flaws to be something great. It is a good, entertaining adventure/action drama with a social message (which can be somewhat extrapolated in comparison to the world’s own current wealth distribution inequality). Katniss is a very likable character, even if she is basically left out of the primary narrative of the film. And that is the problem. Because Katniss is left out, so is the audience. Director Francis Lawrence does this because he wants the big reveal (that is not really that big a surprise for anyone actually paying attention) for Katniss to also play for the audience. Thus, the audience is saddled with pretty much the same film again: Katniss is a heartbroken tribute. She goes to the capital, where she is paraded around, trains, makes allies/enemies, all before being dropped into the arena to fight to the death. Lawrence does give the audience better and more exciting action this time (as he clearly also has a bigger budget and skill for the genre), but still the audience has already seen all this before in the last film.

Worst of all, just when the narrative starts to get interesting and Katniss is finally let in on the primary plot (which is all behind the scenes in the film, as the audience is fixed to Katniss’s perspective), the film ends. This leaves the film feeling frustratingly incomplete, as effectively Catching Fire is nothing but act one for the bigger narrative that plays out in Mockingjay – a big tease for better things to come. While Catching Fire is better in almost every way in comparison to The Hunger Games, at least that film has a satisfying narrative and character arc.

Narratively, Catching Fire is not a feature film, rather merely part one of a three part story structured similarly to a television miniseries.  It is common in Hollywood for series to be split into multiple films (often one story being split into two or even three films), but so far writers have done a good job structuring the breaks so that each part in a way tells its own story and the character(s) grow, develop, and change from beginning to end, while also having a goal or dramatic journey. Catching Fire seemingly has no real narrative structure – and if it does, it is essentially the same as the first film. The film essentially is about all the chess pieces being organized into their strategic positions in order to strike at their opponent, but then the film ends before they can make their move. And, on top of that, the audience is not even involved in their positioning; rather they sit on the sideline while things happen around them, only clued in once they are on the board (but by then, the film is over). Katniss’s dramatic struggle in the film (trying to survive yet another Hunger Games, while primarily trying to keep Peeta alive) is completely undermined by the reveal at the end, because really her struggle was just a place holder until the real narrative was ready to begin (which we will have to wait a year to see the first half of). This whole film could have easily been condensed into act one of the next film (book) because that is essentially what it is. Therefore, while the action is bigger, the stakes higher (I guess), and so on, the narrative that the audience is a part of is boring (as they have already watched this film last time), plus Katniss does not really have a character arc (because she is essentially sidelined). The viewer is only engaged because of their investment in Katniss and she is in peril, but again from a story perspective this leaves a lot to be desired and is almost wholly unsatisfying (as a standalone film).

Now, in the scheme of the whole series, Catching Fire might end up working quite well as a companion piece to the Mockingjay films, but as a standalone film it just does not have a strong enough narrative to warrant its existence, at least in the framework of a narrative feature film. And yet, it is entertaining and enjoyable for what it is and it does leave the audience ready and excited for what comes next – and therefore one could say it does its job.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: What a difference a director makes. The Hunger Games presents a strong female character in Katniss and a compelling idea of a society that celebrates the spectacle of its youths fighting to the death, but Gary Ross took this material and delivered a rather dull film that is really only good due to its lead actress and the strength of its story and world. Francis Lawrence does a much better job with the look and action. Catching Fire is much more fluid and exciting, if only it had a strong narrative too. Despite its flaws, it very well might be Lawrence’s best film (edging out Constantine and I Am Legend). I do look forward to seeing what he does with the finale two films, which likely will actually feature a full story and a real dramatic arc for Katniss.

Composer James Newton Howard already had a strong foundation with his music for The Hunger Games, thus his work on Catching Fire was more or less already done for him. Some composers take their music to new heights with each sequel (like Hans Zimmer with his phenomenal The Dark Knight Rises score), while others rest on their laurels. Howard’s score for Catching Fire works well with the drama on screen, and thus does what it needs to do, but it does not really bring anything dynamic or new to the film (and yes, Howard did work with Zimmer on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight scores). Meanwhile, the soundtrack inspired by the film is probably better this time around. Production designer Philip Messina again does good work on the film, which takes full advantage of the stark juxtaposition between the poorer districts and the rich Capital. Costume designer Trish Summerville also does standout work. In taking over for Ross, Lawrence brought in cinematographer Jo Willems, who provides a much richer look for the film (accentuating what appear to be greater production values).

Catching Fire also features what feels like a much better, fuller cast this time around, especially in the smaller supporting roles. As far as returning supporting characters, Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks are again fun in their outlandish roles, but this time they get to play with some emotion as well. Donald Sutherland does a good job playing what is essentially a snarling role as the President. Despite his appearance, he seems menacing. While barely in the film, Willow Shields actually has some strong moments as Katniss’s sister Primrose. Liam Hemsworth has the difficult job of playing a character with no development – Gale – who exists seemingly to be handsome and likable. Woody Harrelson is very good as Haymitch, but as he is primarily involved in the main behind the scenes plot that is kept secret from Katniss (and the audience, though poorly) he has little screen time. There is a lot of good work from the new faces. Patrick St. Esprit is strong as a ruthless soldier (in a very small role). Amanda Plummer plays crazy in an ‘I am actually really smart’ way quite well, while Jeffrey Wright plays smart in a fun annoyed genius sort of way. Jena Malone is fantastic as Johanna Mason, a former champion who feels very put out by having to compete again and is not afraid to vocalize it. She, more so that most of the other former champions (that are not just balls of muscles), actually is able to be very intimidating without seeming physically imposing. Sam Claflin is strong as Finnick, as he is able to play things close to the vest. The audience is not really sure if he is a hero or villain (even at the end, when it seems clear). Much like Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman who just commands the screen is desperately short on screen time, because he is involved in the more interesting narrative that audience is not involved in (but will likely play a bigger role in the upcoming films). Josh Hutcherson is much better this time around. His Peeta seems to have discovered himself and is not afraid to actually try and put himself out there. His acting was timid in the last film, he seems much more confident, allowing himself to actually take on a character this time. Jennifer Lawrence is again the main reason that the film succeeds on any level. She brings so much to Katniss. The audience seems to forget that this is just a film and Katniss is not real. She plays her so naturally that it feels like Katniss is a real girl facing horrors, which pulls the audience in and has them glued to the screen.

Summary & score: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is better in almost every way to its predecessor, but it is also essentially the same film rehashed again with the far more interesting narrative played behind the scenes and left for later films in the series. 7/10

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Amy Adams – The Master

Playing Peggy, Amy Adams at first seems to be a quiet doting wife to Lancaster Dodd, kind and gentle, but as the film progresses it becomes clear that she is really the one with the control and power behind The Cause. Adams’s work in The Master is therefore sort of misleading. She does not seem to have much dramatic work, and yet is a commanding presence in many of the scenes (most of which she is just sitting and watching – it is only near the end of the film where is vocally asserts her true authority). And thus, her performance is a key component to the film. It is one of the year’s more difficult subtle performances (and best).

Javier Bardem – Skyfall

Villains seem to make up a lot of 2012’s best supporting work, and Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall is maybe the best of the lot. James Bond villains have always been amplified and sort of comically evil (and we love them for that reason). Bardem captures the essence of the typical Bond villain but also does something new. Silva actually makes Bond uncomfortable (as well as the audience to some extent), because he is much more than Bond’s equal. He is a real threat to Bond, more so than any villain in the franchise’s history. The performance is completely magnetic – the scene in which Bond and Silva first meet is among the year’s best.

Alison Brie – The Five-Year Engagement

Alison Brie is hysterical in The Five-Year Engagement playing the sister (Suzie) of one of the film’s leads (Violet). Along with Chris Pratt (who is also killer in support), she delivers much of the film’s funniest moments (as the leads are given most of the drama). Brie is particularly fantastic giving a speech at her sister’s engagement part, on the verge of tears, and giving her sister a pep talk later in the film in an Elmo voice (maybe the film’s best scene). Comedy is always overlooked, but Brie just radiates too brightly to be ignored.

Leonardo DiCaprio – Django Unchained

Django Unchained is full of great and fun performances. Jamie Foxx is at his best in the lead as Django and Christoph Waltz (who very easily could have made this list, and would have in most years) is top-notch in support. But, it is Leonardo DiCaprio who shines the brightest. He is thoroughly insane as Calvin Candie, a cruel plantation owner. While Waltz is funny and engaging, DiCaprio is forcibly dynamic as he seemingly by sheer will takes over every scene commanding the attention of the audience (and the other characters). He is the focus of all his scenes. Villains often have the latitude to go big with their performances, and DiCaprio goes huge. He is an absolute blast to watch.

Tom Hardy – The Dark Knight Rises

Tom Hardy had the impossible task of following Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The role is also particularly challenging as Hardy’s face is almost altogether obstructed by a mask. Yet, he is brilliant. Using his body language and the way he moves, along with his menacing eyes, Hardy constructs Batman’s most brutal foe. Bane also very much lives in the gypsy voice that Hardy gives him – his line delivery (though, it does take some getting used to – but it does become easily understandable eventually) is playful and authoritative, an odd combination but it completely works. Every scene that Hardy is in is a pleasure to watch. He certainly lives up to Ledger’s Joker.

Anne Hathaway – Les Miserables

After seeing The Dark Knight Rises, Anne Hathaway seemed destined to make this list for her fantastic work as Selina Kyle (essentially giving the definitive performance as the character). However, her work in Les Miserables as Fantine is even better. She is heartbreaking, leaving every viewer emotionally touched. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream is magnificent, perfectly capturing the dismal low that Fantine finds herself in, having lost everything. The viewer forgets that they are watching an actress and a performance. It is probably the best performance of the year (at least in support).

Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work in The Master is among his best. As Lancaster Dodd, the man at the head of The Cause, he has a wonderful duality to his performance. He is completely infatuated with himself and utterly oozing with confidence, and yet he also seems completely lost and alone, shackled in solitude by the farce he has created around himself. Whenever Hoffman is on screen, he demands the attention of the audience, as the center of it all – and the audience completely obliges him as they cannot look away. His work is just too compelling. The scenes between Hoffman and lead Joaquin Phoenix are especially electric.

Ezra Miller – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Following up on his brilliant work in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ezra Miller turns in another phenomenal performance in The Perks of Being a Wallflower as Patrick. Miller has so much energy and intensity in the film that he pulls the audience’s attention towards him in every scene (which is the mark of truly great work – the viewer cannot look away). Patrick burns almost too brightly, that when he gets low there almost seems to be a lull or void, and Miller is able to capture these darker emotions of sadness and loneness incredibly well. While 2012 was full of great supporting work by male actors, Miller might just turn in the year’s best performance in the category (a performance that has been shamefully overlooked).

Kelly Reilly – Flight

Flight has a number of wonderful supporting performances in it – namely from John Goodman, James Badge Dale, and Kelly Reilly – however, it is Reilly that serves as the film’s heart playing Nicole, a vital role given Whip’s fall (the film’s lead character). Her work in the film needed to be strong, as she allows the audience to get behind Whip, even despite himself and his vices, because she believes in him and is behind him. Reilly is also a ray of hope in Whip’s life as she too is an addict, but a recovering one who is determined to start her life anew. As good as Denzel Washington is in Flight, the film would just not be the same emotionally without Reilly’s excellent supporting work.

Emma Watson – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Emma Watson grew up before the eyes of cinemagoers playing Hermione Granger for over a decade in the Harry Potter franchise. Starting as a newcomer to acting, she got better with each film devolving into one of Hollywood’s great young stars (her work in the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 is especially strong). In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Watson has the difficult role of playing both the ‘dream girl’ and a well-drawn realistic character as Sam, and she pulls it off beautifully. She wins the audience and Charlie over with her charms, but is not without flaws and struggles – once again presenting young women with a female character they can relate to and care about (when Hollywood seldom offers good female characters).

Movie of the Week – Magnolia

Movie of the week: Magnolia (1999).

The ensemble drama focuses on a group of people living in the San Fernando Valley.

Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson went to a different level with his filmmaking with his third film Magnolia (expanding on the ensemble idea crafted and grown in Hard Eight and Boogie Nights). The style of Anderson’s directing and his fantastic writing give the film so much emotional depth and resonance. It is an experience all cinema fans should have. Anderson has made six films to date, and while There Will Be Blood and The Master (his two latest) might be is best, Magnolia is his first great film.

Anderson worked with many of his frequent collaborators on the film, including composer Jon Brion (three Anderson films), cinematographer Robert Elswit (five Anderson films) and production designers William Arnold (two Anderson films) and Mark Bridges (all six Anderson films).

The great and diverse cast features Anderson frequents Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, John C. Reilly, Philip Baker Hall, Alfred Molina, Melora Walters, Luis Guzman, Ricky Jay, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as well as stars like Tom Cruise, Jason Robards, and Felicity Huffman. Also, look out for cameos from Patton Oswalt, Thomas Jane, Clark Gregg, and Jim Beaver.

The 1990s featured a few brilliant ensemble films that changed filmmaking (The Player, The Thin Red Line, Boogie Nights, Glengarry Glen Ross, Heat, and Reservoir Dogs), but two stand out above the rest: Pulp Fiction and Magnolia. The film was nominated for three Oscars including Best Supporting Actor (for Tom Cruise) and Best Writing. It is among the films that are mandatory viewing for those looking to have a strong working knowledge of film history/aesthetics, auteur filmmakers and the great films of the 1990s.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

The Master (2012) – Review

Review: The Master is the work of a proficient filmmaker, utilizing the medium to artfully tell his narrative and connect with the audience. The film is about a Naval combatant, Freddie Quell, returning from WWII who just does not seem to fit into society anymore. The horrors of war have emotionally scarred him. He drifts aimlessly from one odd job to the next until he is drawn in by a charismatic cult leader, Lancaster Dodd, who takes an interest in him.

Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson takes a more experimental approach to his narrative with The Master. The film is not so much about Freddie’s story; rather it is more about his internal emotional struggle – his un-abating loneliness. There is a hole in Freddie that he just cannot seem to fill (he often turns to alcohol as an escape). We are shown pieces that when put together reveal Freddie’s emotional journey. However, Anderson does not just do this with story. He uses all available tools, taking full advantage of the score, photography and production design to both relate Freddie’s inner struggle in a more visual manner and to also play on the emotions of the viewer (especially with the score). The structure is not entirely straightforward either, exploiting flashbacks multiple times to drive deeper into the root of Freddie’s issues. In the present, the narrative only shows the viewer the most important of moments, constantly jumping forward escaping the mundane. This results in many of the scenes, particularly those between Freddie and the Master (Dodd), being electric and utterly compelling and engaging. They command the audience’s attention, as the viewer hangs on each word and action. The writing and performances are fantastic in this regard as well.

Anderson also has given a lot of emphasis to the characters as well. They are very well drawn and all given moments that are exploited for the audience to really understand them. However, what is interesting is that none of them is particularly likable (which is somewhat uncommon in filmmaking, especially in Hollywood movies). While unlikable characters can put some audience members off, as they cannot connect to people they do not like, Anderson uses humor and gives them a real humanity by not just making them flawed but also by making them seem real (the actors playing their characters with a combination of stylized naturalism) by having them engaging in ordinary tasks while emoting to overcome their un-likability. A good example of both is Freddie and Dodd sharing Freddie’s homemade brew. Their back-and-forth is very natural and funny.

Anderson uses humor throughout the film to temper the drama as well. The film is very heavy in many cases, as Freddie’s internal struggle affects the audience emotionally. He just seems to get in his own way and destroy all the good work he has done, which can be hard on an audience with a stake in him. Thus, the humor lightens the tone slightly and gives the audience a release and break from the emotional weight.

While The Master is exceptionally well made, the experimental nature of the narrative (both temporally and aesthetically, with some of the visual themes feeling very much like a Terrence Malick film – without all the voice-over narration – ‘man in nature’ or ‘man’s corruption’) will not work for all viewers. There is also not much action in the film, as all the scenes are about developing the characters (through dialogue or visually). Casual viewers looking for pure entertainment (might be surprised and find this very engaging as it is fantastic, but probably) will find this too slow and maybe even boring. The film is a bit weird – stemming from the music, the odd characters and the narrative structure, and again it is not going to work for everyone.

However, for those that do enjoy more aesthetically pleasing and thoughtful films, The Master is one of the best of 2012. It features wonderful characters, magnificent visuals and wholly dynamic scenes.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Paul Thomas Anderson has made six films, all of them very good. However, his last two (this and There Will Be Blood) have displayed a complete deftness for filmmaking – every aspect working together to create a fully cinematic and visceral experience. These films are layered, demanding multiple viewings to take in all the character and emotional drama to fully (if that is possible) understand the journey Anderson is taking the viewer on with the narrative. He is among the great auteurs working today (and in cinema history).

The Master, overall, is a phenomenal display of aesthetic brilliance. Jonny Greenwood’s (of Radiohead) score is consuming. It plays with the emotional state of the audience, often putting them ill-at-ease, which makes the drama and odd nature of Freddie or the more compelling and affecting. Like Freddie, the audience is never comfortable – it is remarkable work (here is a sample). Mihai Malaimare Jr.’s cinematography is beautiful in many places, exploiting the elegance and power of nature. His use of light and focus is also top notch. And, the framing and mise en scene is wonderful as well (I love the shot of Freddie running away through the barren field – if feels iconic for the film). Malaimare Jr. and Anderson have created one of the best shot films of 2012. David Crank and Jack Fisk’s production design is also of high aesthetic quality. The film has both a naturalistic and sort of exaggerated feel to it (and being that those seem to be contradictory, balancing the tone must have been difficult). The design work plays off this antagonism by having the characters look very natural and realistic but often occupy space that seems a bit off (like Dodd’s office at the school, which is my favorite set in the film).

 The performances are excellent throughout the film. W. Earl Brown, Kevin J. O’Connor, Ambyr Childers, and Rami Malek are good in small roles. Amy Adams has a real power and control in her supporting role. She seems very kind and gentle on the outside, but behind closed doors seems to be the true force behind the Cause. Philip Seymour Hoffman (as usual) is utterly brilliant. He dominates the screen, almost daring the viewer to look away. Dodd is completely flawed and seemingly lost, and yet also fully engaged and enamored with himself, which gives him boundless confidence. The performance is among his best work. Joaquin Phoenix has been a great actor for years, but seemingly under the radar (even with his Oscar nomination for Walk the Line) – that is no more with this performance. Freddie is the classic kind of character who is a walking emotional wrecking ball, obliterating anything good that might be coming to him. And yet, he plays Freddie with such an inner sadness, that the audience cannot help but relate to him, even when he is completely unlikable – a scoundrel.

Summary & score: The Master is an absolute cinematic joy to partake in – to experiences the mastery of a true auteur. 9/10

Paul Thomas Anderson – Movies Spotlight – September 2012

Paul Thomas Anderson, 42, is among the great generation of auteurs to emerge out of the 1990s (filmmakers like: Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Alfonso Cuaron, Peter Jackson, Kar Wai Wong, and Quentin Tarantino). This month, his new film The Master is set for release. It is has played to high praise and acclaim among most critics (though, some are calling it too experimental), and is among the Oscar frontrunners. Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman (a frequent Anderson collaborator, appearing in five of Anderson’s six films) and Amy Adams, the film is about Freddie Quell, a Naval veteran who arrives home disillusioned and uncertain about his future. That is, until he finds a place in The Cause, drawn in by its charismatic leader. Check out the trailer.

Early Career:

Anderson briefly attended Emerson College and New York University before diving into his career, taking a job as a production assistant working on whatever he could – be it television movies, music videos or game shows in LA and New York. Instead of film school, Anderson pooled his money (which amounted to $10,000 set aside for college by his parents, some money he won gambling and his girlfriend’s credit card) and set out to make a short film calling it his college experience. The film was Cigarettes & Coffee (costing $20,000), a short following multiple storylines involving a twenty-dollar bill (something that would become prevalent in Anderson’s early features). He screened the film at the 1993 Sundance Film Festival and was invited to the 1994 Sundance filmmaker’s lab. At the lab, his mentor was Michael Caton-Jones (who was in the prime of his career, just off Memphis Belle and This Boy’s Life and about to direct Rob Roy). Jones saw a lot of talent in Anderson, but not a lot of hands on experience and thus focused his mentorship in that direction. Anderson decided to adapt his short into a feature titled Sydney, signing a deal with Rysher Entertainment. In 1996, he wrote and directed the film, but Rysher executives decided to re-edit it. However, Anderson still had a print of his original cut and submitted it to the Cannes Film Festival where it was screened, receiving acclaim. Anderson was then able to get his version released but he had to retitle it Hard Eight and had to come up with $200,000 to finish it (which was funded by himself and the film’s stars Gwyneth Paltrow and John C. Reilly). Rysher did nothing to promote the film, but even so it was noticed by critics and launched Anderson’s career.

Breakthrough and Creative Control:

During Anderson’s issues with Hard Eight, he began writing a new script in the summer of 1995 based on an early short film he had made called The Dirk Diggler Story. Once Hard Eight was done, Anderson started to circulate the script. New Line Cinema became very interested after the studio’s president Michael De Luca loved the script. Boogie Nights went into production and was released in 1997. The film was a breakthrough hit for Anderson and its stars – momentarily resurrecting Burt Reynolds’s career and serving as the breakthrough for Mark Wahlberg and Julianne Moore (among others). It received three Oscar nominations (two for acting and one for writing). Like Hard Eight but more so, Boogie Nights showed off Anderson’s brilliant ability to present great fully fleshed out characters across a large ensemble. Anderson also showed off his knack for writing wonderful scenes with sort of a heightened reality (I love this one with Rashad Jackson played by Alfred Molina). With the success of Boogie Nights, New Line Cinema gave Anderson a metaphoric black check to make whatever he wanted with absolute creative control (ever director’s dream). The film started out initially as a small intimate project, but as Anderson wrote it grew into a vast ensemble piece about the intersecting lives of several people in the San Fernando Valley, which we know as Magnolia. Again, Anderson’s film garnered three Oscar nominations (this time, one for acting, one of original song and one for writing). Anderson has claimed that Magnolia is the best film he will probably ever make.

And Now for Something Different (Sort of):

With the 1990s over and done, Anderson had three critical hits under his belt and sat almost atop the totem poll of prestige filmmakers. But, he wanted to try something different. All of his films had been long ensemble piece and he wanted to make something shorter and more centralized on one character. He decided to make a romantic comedy, but with his own style to it – and thus Punch-Drunk Love was born (partially based on David Phillips). Anderson played around with the visuals and especially the sound design to create the tone and character for his lead Adam Sandler (in what is easily his best performance). The film is aesthetically ambitious and wildly enthralling and strange (and maybe even off-putting for some). Leave it to Anderson to make a film in what has become the most genetic and boring genre (rom-coms) into something completely weird and beautiful. While not receiving any Oscar nominations, it did win best director at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for the Golden Palm (best film). Next, Anderson made a film that at first glance seems nothing like a typical PT Anderson film with There Will Be Blood (my personal favorite of his films to date). The character piece is a cinematic marvel, as it is both aesthetically superb and features some of the decade’s best performances (notably Daniel Day-Lewis in the lead role). In many ways, this film cements Anderson as a truly unique and gifted auteur, the film being among the greatest of the decade (some even naming it as one of the best American films ever made). It was nominated for eight Oscars (including Best Picture, Director and Screenplay) winning two (Cinematography for Robert Elswit, who shot all of Anderson’s first five films, and Lead Actor for Day-Lewis).

Upcoming Projects:

Anderson does not have any future projects set in stone at present. However, he is working on adapting Thomas Pynchon’s novel Inherent Vice – a hard boiled pothead detective story. He has also mentioned an interest in another Pynchon novel Gravity’s Rainbow.

Career Highlights:

1)      Hard Eight (1996) – writer/director (DVD)

2)      Boogie Nights (1997) – writer/director (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

3)      Magnolia (1999)* – writer/director (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

4)      Punch-Drunk Love (2002) – writer/director (DVD, Streaming)

5)      There Will Be Blood (2007)* – writer/director (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

*Editor’s picks

The Ides of March (2011) – Review

Review: The Ides of March is a good and very well-made political drama, performance and aesthetically speaking, but it lacks any real sense of emotional connect to the audience. It plays more as a drama, in terms of the audience watching it to find out what happens, than a thriller. Even though all the performances are very good, the audience does not care about the characters, and this is due to director (and co-writer) George Clooney’s inability to create characters that are relatable to the audience, or at least present them as such. As is, the film is presented much more as a tale to be followed, completely plot driven. While there are emotional scenes for the main character Stephen and great moments between characters, they all serve the plot and not the character(s). The viewer never feels invested in Stephen, and thus the drama and mild thriller aspects of the narrative do not engage the audience on a higher emotional level. However despite this shortcoming, Clooney (et al.) still makes a very good film (that could have been great). This is due to fantastic aesthetics, wonderfully written scenes and great performances. It sounds odd that a film can have great performances but not connect with the audience, but it is a matter of how the characters are presented to the audience – whether the viewer is merely supposed to follow them on their journey or actively participate (plot driven versus character driven). However, there are very good plot driven films that still have character moments that allow for a meaningful connection with the audience, so they can be invested, and this is simply lacking in The Ides of March (which I think would otherwise be a great film instead of just a good one). The film’s aesthetics are however quite brilliant and many of the scenes are among my favorites of the year (specifically one between Stephen and Tom Duffy near the end of the second act), elevating the film considerably. An aspect of the film that is also interesting is the portray of American politics as a soul-crushing profession that eats up virtue and spits out emptiness. The characters have goals of making the country better and on the outside seem to be honest, but once the film digs into the backchannels and behind the scenes of their campaigns there is something rotten at the center (and it sure seems like this is probably the case in real life as well). If there is any character drama in the film at all, it is the transition in Stephen’s expression and overall body language from the beginning to the end. All in all, The Ides of March has a lot to like about it (on one viewing, though I question how much it holds up on multiple viewings), but Clooney seems more interested in the style, performances and look of the film than its emotional core.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: George Clooney has directed four features now, and The Ides of March is probably his best (though, many would argue Good Night, and Good Luck. is a better film – but I think it is vastly overrated). Each of his films show off his love for style and the aesthetics of filmmaking, and this is no different. The film is beautifully shot. Cinematographer Phedon Papamichael’s lighting is brilliant and among the best of the year, while Sharon Seymour’s production design and sets fit the tone and style of the film perfectly. As much as I liked Papmichael’s work, Alexandre Desplat’s score is maybe even more marvelous. The Ides of March also features really good acting throughout. Jeffrey Wright seems to be having some fun with his character, and it works well. Evan Rachel Wood, Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman are fantastic in their supporting roles, stealing most of the scenes they are in. Clooney is his typical stoic self, but with hints of cracks (but really this is the same type of performance he always gives). The lead Ryan Gosling is very good as well (with Crazy, Stupid, Love. and Drive, he might be having the best year of any actor), but his performance is slightly overshadowed by the lack of any connection with the audience – and thus we do not care about his character aside from wanting to see how things play out.

Summary & score: Otherwise very well made, The Ides of March is missing its soul, but even so is a good political drama. 8/10

Movie of the Week – Mission: Impossible III

This week’s movie is Mission: Impossible III (2006).

The action film is about Ethan Hunt, a secret agent who comes out of retirement when one of his trainees is captured by a sadistic arms dealer. Like the first two films in the series, part three is directed by a well-known filmmaker – J.J. Abrams (however, unlike parts one and two, this is actually a really good movie). Abrams co-wrote the script with his Star Trek and Fringe collaborators Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Also frequent collaborators of Abrams, fantastic composer Michael Giacchino, cinematographer Daniel Mindel and production designer Scott Chambliss provide the film with a great aesthetic. It boosts a wonderful cast as well with Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays such an excellent villain), Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q, Simon Pegg, Eddie Marsan, and Laurence Fishburne. While Abrams already had a successful TV career, this marked his feature film directing debut. He structured the film almost flawlessly – the narrative is continuously moving forward, there is never a dull moment, but there are also enough character moments and emotion to keep the viewer invested in the characters, which is rare. It is a very well-directed film (and among my favorites of the last decade). While Abrams is not directing part IV, he is producing it. Kanye West also provided two tracks for the film (the song Impossible and a remix of the theme). It is one of the best action movies of the last decade (and one that is criminally underrated, probably due to Tom Cruise’s public persona) and a must-see for action genre fans. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming