The Trial - 1962

Most famous for Citizen Kane it is often forgotten just how many classic films Orson Welles eventually made. And The Trial is one of them. Adapted, for the most part faithfully, from Franz Kafka's novel, The Trial stars Anthony Perkins as Joseph K. the beleagured bank clerk arrested and put on trial for a crime he has no knowledge of, and can find no knowledge of. Sticking closely to Kafka's novel Welles brings the absurdist and insanity inducing story to life through wonderful use of camera movement, placement and framing as well as lighting which echoes the classic film noirs of the 40s. The film begins and continues to feel more and more claustrophobic as Joseph K. futilely attempts to uncover his crime and prove his innocence. As each avenue closes itself off to K. it becomes ever more clear that he is destined to a fate he has no control over.
Perkins is excellent in the central role, all paranoia, fidgety mannerisms which recall the classic performance of Norman Bates two years earlier. Welles himself plays the Advocate with devilish relish and takes it upon himself to retell the biblical story towards the films climax regarding the man sent to a room but stopped by a guard who will not let him pass. The cast is bolstered by a strong female presence in Jeanne Moreau, Romy Schneider and Elsa Martinelli.
The production of the film arose when Alexander Salkind approached Welles to adapt a story of his choice promising complete artistic control and the film was shot on the abandoned railway station, Gare d'Orsay which Welles used to wonderful effect.
As adaptations go Welles' The Trial is a wonderful film, in many ways superior to Kafka's book as he elevates the film from pure faithful adaptation utilising the qualities and strengths of his art form to bring out the tone and sense of despair from the book in wonderfully visual and engaging way. No image or frame in the film is not stimulating and moving toward the fatalistic ending, and certain stand out locations and scenes such as the Titorelli painter sequence and the final Cathedral scene are so evocative and scary that they achieve so much more than the book does.
Welles made a number of masterpieces following Citizen Kane and The Trial is one of them. Whether a fan of the book or just a lover of great visual sotrytelling, The Trial is a delight to behold.

I Am Love - 2010

I Am Love is another film which reinforces the notion that Italian cinema is experiencing something of a resugence at the moment. Following such wonderful films as Gommorah and Il Divo, I Am Love continues to push forward with a new breed of great Italian filmmakers. The film centres on the lives of wealthy aristocratic family the Recchis'. Opening on the birthday party of the father (Edoardo) of the family, who announces his retirement from the family business leaving it to his son (Tancredi) and his grandson (Edo), proclaiming it will take two men to follow in his footsteps, the film goes on to chart the individual lives of the family; focuses mainly on Emma, wife of Tancredi. Its a sign of Edoardo's and the Recchi's arrogance and grandiose self image that he believes it would take two men to carry on the business. This arrogance is echoed in the news that the Grandson Edo has finished 2nd in a race earlier in the day. Something unheard of in the Recchi family. The winner of that race; a chef Antonio; someone lacking the elegant grandeur of the family becomes the man who eventually penetrates the family and leads to the breaking down on the unit. Firstly, at the impetus of Edo, they embark on a plan to open a restaurant in a secluded country spot hours away from civilisation. During his burgeoning friendship with the Edo he comes more and more into contact with Edo's Mother Emma, who as the story unfolds is revealed to be a Russian,  and seems somewhat out of place in this world. Tilda Swinton's wonderfully understated performance of a woman tied to a family and its rituals, wanting to break free. The first sign of this arrives when she tries Antonio's food; an orgasmic release of emotion previously unseen in the film.
Gradually Emma embarks on a dangerous affair with Antonio which threatens to tear the family apart.
The film is shot in beautifully subdued tones, the film shot almost entirely using natural light. This gives the film a certain quality as though there is a darkness, a secretive nature to not just the characters but also the family. Later when Emma embarks on her affair, we get the golden hues on the countryside which feels refreshing and like a breakthrough from the dark, drab life she inhabits in the family home.
The main problem with the film is its inability to draw me in to the lives of those of the family. I felt very little emotional connection to any of the characters and the film became more a cerebral than emotional experience, but a very good one at that.

Heart of Glass - 1976

After the opening few scenes of Werner Herzog's Herz aus Glas a hypnotic effect is created upon the viewer. The world Herzog creates through the unfolding of the story and Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein stunningly evocative cinematography is bewitching, absorbing and yet distancing in a strange, surreal way. The film tells the story of a pre-industrial Bavarian village in which all the inhabitants have fallen into madness after the death of the local glass blower, who has taken the secret of his ruby glass. A seer from the hills then arrives in the village with ominous prophecies of doom.
Herzog is known for his challenging films and Heart of Glass is up there with the weirdest them. The most fascinating and strangely terrifying thing about the film are the performances; the actors performing their roles hypnotised. This adds to the eerie atmosphere created by Herzog as each character reacts in unnatrual ways to the events going around them, and everyone appears under a spell.
Although Heart of Glass is an absorbing, unique and beautifully made film, I found it a tad hollow as it failed to connect with me in a deep, emotional way. Although Herzog exploits to the best of his ability the sense of loss and fear the village feels at the death of the glass blower, it never quite manages to reach the heights of Nosferatu or Aguirre which both have similar aura's about them.
Another bizarre yet brilliant film from Herzog which may be difficult to enjoy or engage with but is no less fascinating for it.

Shortbus - 2006

I watched Shortbus not because I'm a perve, or have a filthy mind, or even to surprise my girlfriend with what, from the opening sequence feels as though it is going to be a porno. Instead I am fascinated by cinema's inability to make films in which the central subject matter is sex itself. On numerous occasions cinema has managed to achieve genuinely erotic, intimate, passionate, lustful or downright sexy sex scenes - the irony being that all of these scenes are simulated sex. With Shortbus and a number of other films of recent years including Intimacy and 9 songs, the boundaries between simulated and real sex, and cinema and pornography have merged. Similar to violence in cinema which over the past ten years has become so graphic to the point of feeling pornographic it certainly feels as though the restrictions facing modern filmmakers are becoming ever more relaxed. Yet where cinematic violence can on occasion achieve an artistic and brilliant level of both relevance and enjoyment (if enjoyment is the correct word), sex is cinema, as it becomes more graphic becomes less dramatic and actually stands to make these films tedious, pointless and utterly devoid of pleasure - so very much unlike sex. It may be that while their is a level of complicity which exists in violence on screen, and you can either indulge that primal side of your nature, exorcising those parts of your mind which can in no other way, beyond actual violence, be purged, with sex it fails to work.
This, to my mind, seems to be that sex is an extremely initmate affair, and even when it involves more than 2 people their is a connection which exists between those partaking in sex which can never be replicated with a cinema audience. Sex, and the initmacy which is intrinsic to its act is almost internal, and so something is lost when you watch it. Unlike say porn which is clearly just for the audience to get off, sex in cinema attempts to recreate that intimacy, or passion, or even lust, which we all secretly know doesn't exist in porn and thankfully the pornstars seem completely aware of it. Its a mechanical act devoid of emotion. And so Shortbus, the most explicitly sexual mainstream film fails resoundingly on its one big selling point.

The film also fails on its more traditional and conventional cinematic levels as well such as story and character. The array of characters on display are barely likeable, the story is disengaging and by the end you couldn't care less if the main character has never had an orgasm (although you do feel compelled to point out that she might be going about it all wrong). The gay couple do nothing to elicit sympathy and nobody else manages to achieve anything close to empathy or sympathy throughout the entire film. Which is a shame because I had hoped Shortbus would be the first film to deal with the issue of sex in cinema and actually make it engaging, emotional and entertaining.

Centurion - 2010

Neil Marhsall is a filmmaker who as garnered my interest and I constantly look forward to his latest film. This opinion comes from both Dog Soldiers, an excellent British Werewolf horror with great wit and humour, and the The Descent, arguably the best horror film of the past decade, and an incredibly terrifying yet character driven film. His third film, which I've yet to see, Doomsday, wasn't well recieved and followed a similar model of putting a small band of characters in an inhospitable scenario and then slowly killing them off. Centurion, his latest effort follows the same tried and tested path.
The film begins with Michael Fassbinder's Quintus Dias, Roman Centurion and son of a Gladiator, as he flees from captitvity at the hands of the ruthless Picts. Following his escape he is teamed up with the Ninth Legion of Rome in Britain as ther make ready their invasion of the Pict territory in Scotland. What follows is the decimation of the Legion at the hands of the Picts and the attempt of the few remaining survivors to get back to Roman occupied land before a Pict search party can hunt them down and murder them all.
One of the principal problems I felt in this film was just how low budget it felt. Unlike say Gladiator, or any number of Roman set epics, this film felt small, and suffered for it. The initial battle between the Picts and the Roman's feels tiny in comparison to say the opening battle of Gladiator. The "Legion" representing nothing more than about 100 hundred men.
Thankfully though, the film really kicks into gear and the adrenalin got pumping when the band of survivors set out on their mission to first, rescue the General and then flee to the safety of Britain. It's here that Marshall, from the experience gained in his previous work, really begins to express himself as Fassbinder and a band of recognisable British faces (David Morrissey, Noel Clarke, Riz Ahmed and Liam Cunningham who seems to be in everything these days) and a few others. The film resembled Dog Soldiers on the run, but with less wry wit and poorer action sequences.
The main problem for me though was in the lack of a real theme. A minor subplot involving a witch (yes!) felt contrived and set up to provide an ending which was predictable, telegraphed and disappointing. The other problem was that the Roman's were made out to be the bad guys invading the Picts land and so I was never really sure who to root for. Add to that the Picts being depicted as a bunch of super human native killers which fell the wrong side of cliche and the film seemed to enjoy seeing the Roman's defeated by the Picts, whilst also asking us to root for the few surviving Romans.
Despite all the flaws when Marshall lets rip with fake blood and big weapons you'll find few complaints from me. It's just a shame the story and characters weren't as rich as those in Dog Soldiers or The Descent.

Iron Man 2 - 2010

For me the first Iron Man film felt a tad lightweight and a little underwhelming but was held together and utterly enjoyable thanks to the strong cast (mainly Robert Downey Jr, but also the effortlessly captivating Gwyneth Paltrow). In many ways it reminded me of the first X-Men film. A film which had made the most of its budget, whilst never really being able to hide it. Add to this that Irom Man was an origin story which invariably suffers from a lack of forward momentum and big set pieces (the original Superman being the exception.) and Iron Man was good, but nothing more.
So I came to Iron Man 2 expecting Favreau and his team to have ironed (pardon the pun) out most of the weaknesses which beset the first film. What I found was a film equally enjoyable but equally frustrating. The film had only two main action sequences, and only one which actually featured Iron Man. Although both were excellent, I never felt the exhilarating heart thumping I expect from Summer blockbusters, and even more so from comic book films.
Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux focus the story on Tony Stark and its a clever and entertaining addition that the power source which is keeping him alive is slowly (or not so slowly) killing him. This added an antagonist in the absence of a direct antagonist for most of the films running time. Which is really the main problem with the film and Iron Man/Tony Stark as a character. Sam Rockwell joins the cast as competitor weapons developer Justin Hammer looking to exploit Stark's knowledge and gain access to an Iron Man suit, but despite another good performance from Rockwell, Hammer is just not a threat to either Stark and his empire or Iron Man. Similarly, Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, who is the central bad guy of the film is missing for much of the 2nd act, and only comes to the fore towards the end.
But Iron Man is still very watchable; Paltrow, Cheadle (replacing Terence Howard as James Rhodes), Johannson and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury make the film an enjoyable ride, even if the film never reaches the amazing heights one comes to expect from an comic book film. One of the subplots should get fanboys ready as Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. comes more the the fore ready for The Avengers in 2012.
That film focuses more on Stark than Iron Man is another commendable decision, and with Downey Jr being possibly the most watchable actor working today it makes sense for the film to foreground Stark over Iron Man, but the scales tip too much in favour of Stark for me - even to the detriment of most of the supporting cast. With Cheadle in your film you would expect a little more, and his emergence as War Machine could have been heightened. Add to that the rather pointless inclusion of Scarlett Johansson, who despite a rather cool action scene adds very little to the story.

Overall then Iron Man 2 is no better but no worse than Iron Man, and should be commended for not falling into the trap of overloading the story with big villains and massive set pieces, but could have at least done with one more good action scene. But what it lacks in acion it makes up with charm and comic moments.

Cemetery Junction - 2010

The debut film from Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant arrived with a certain amount of expectation. After creating one of the finest British sitcoms in The Office, followed it up with the excellent if flawed Extras you could be forgiven for thinking Cemetery Junction would be the best thing since sliced bread.

It's with reluctance then that I have to admit the disappointment I felt coming out of Cemetery Junction. It's not a bad film, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually very good, both funny and moving, silly and poignant, its just that it is never enough of one thing to elevate it above a run of the mill British comedy. Compare it to other recent comedies from TV stalwarts such as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Borat or In The Loop and as a comedy is comes last by a long way. Given the reputation of Gervais and Merchant and the comedy gold they have mined previously it feels very lightweight in the comedy quota, and those moments of comedy which are sprinkled throughout are so good, your left wondering why there aren't more.

Similarly, when one remembers The Office it is as much for the pathos and moments of genuine emotion as for the comedy cringing of David Brent. Yet in Cemetery Junction, bar Bruce (Tom Hughes) and his relationship with his father, the film rarely reaches the emotional heights of The Office, or even Extras for that matter.
I loathe having to compare the film to the TV shows but when a film comes with expectations, and in watching it you are reminded of how good it could have been, the comparisons are almost inevtiable.

The central story revolves around three friends, Freddie, our hero, who wants to break free of the life that awaits him, as personified by Gervais (here playing himself yet again) who plays his father, a factory worker his entire life, his best friend Bruce, destined to end up either in prison or stuck in the factory, who constantly states his intention to leave, but never gets round to it, and Snork, the cliche-rdidden fat friend who might just find love, if he could only think before he speaks.

The main problem with the film doesn't lie in its lack of continuous comedy, or as a serious drama, but rather with the lack of stakes. This is a small story about small characters in a small world. Whatever happens will have no real impact on their lives, beyond their own aspirations or dreams being doused, and as such as a viewer I was left wondering what the point was. The film never attempts to say anything too big, their are hints about the era (1977) being a time when a shift is taking place, as the old paternal figures are constantly ridiculed for their archaic notions and attitudes, but this is subsidiary the central story.

The other problem is in the focus. While Freddie and his burgeoning love for Julie is the central plot, it would have made much more sense to foreground Bruce, as the poster does, and explore more his relationship with his father; a final dialogue free scene is tear-droppingly poignant in a way the rest of the film never comes close to and only hints at just how good this film could have been.

Thankfully the film is held up by a few strong quirky characters and a supporting cast including Emily Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Matthew Goode and Stephen Spiers that provide most of the drama. But ultimately, when you expect so much from such talent you never expect such an underwhelmingly good film. It might feel unique as a British comedy, not falling into either the Richard Curtis mold or social realism, but then it has hardly created any new. Here's hoping for their next effort Gervais/Merchant can find the charm of Cemetery Junction, but with more laughs and more heart.

Michael Haneke, The Films of.

This week I complete my viewing of all of Michael Haneke's theatrical work, excluding The Castle (originally made for TV) with Benny's Video (1992) and the original Funny Games (1997). I first came to Michael Haneke through Cache  (2005), after the film recieved such glowing reviews, and starred Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil. The film, about one man's guilt over the post colonialism of French Algeria, relating to a choice he made as a child, and resurfacing after he recieves a number of video tapes of his apartment, and a series of childish drawings. This was followed by a unique cinematic experience watching his American remake of Funny Games. Its rare for me to experience a film in which most of the audience has left by the end; it happened with Southland Tales (because it was dire), it happened with Antichrist (because it was dire and shocking) and it happened with Funny Games U.S. because it forced the audience to be complicit in what occured on screen, but was no less brilliant, if hardly entertaining.
Finally, last year I saw The White Ribbon, one of the best films of the past ten years. I sat in awe of the genius on display in the film, my mind overwhelmed by the genius on display, and my heart leaping at every moment of cinematic wonder. Having seen these films I decided to seek out his entire oeurve and have since seen all his films, except the previously mention The Castle.
The Seven Continent (Der Siebente Kontinet) was Haneke's first featue film, having worked within TV for years, and it told the true life tale of a family in Austria who decided one day to through off the shackles of life, overwhelmed by the feelings of alienation of distanciation prevelant in modern society, and destroy all their possessions before finally commiting suicide. The film is close the unwatchable, with Haneke obsessed with the rituals of modern living, and we barely even see the faces of the family throughout the story. Of all of Haneke's films it felt the weakest, and it wasn't until the final images, as it was revealed to be based on a true story that the weight of the film hit me.
His follow up, Benny's Video, which forms the 2nd part of a trilogy (though content and characters don't carry over, it being more a thematic triumvirate) is similar in many ways to The Seven Continent. Haneke seems less concerned with emotion engagement, but rather distancing the audience and forcing them to become aware of themselves in the act of watching the story unfold. In this case, about a teenage boy who murders a young girl, and then recieves aid from his parents in covering up the murder. The impact of the film is lasting, but again, with a lack of emotional engagement you are as disturbed as you are engrossed.
Following this Haneke made 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance. Looking past the ever so slightly pretensious title, the film is actually an excellent multi-stranded narrative about a group of alienation individuals, both in relation to each other, and themselves, whose stories culminate in a shocking and unexpected act of violence (somewhat unsurprising for Haneke). The film itself, in my opinion sees a step up in quality from Haneke, and begins to hint at the genius to come.
The original Funny Games, made 10 years before its American remake, takes some of Haneke's trademarks - violence, audience complicity, distanciation over emotional engagment to an extreme, and works so brilliantly as an essay on audience enjoyment of screen violence which Haneke subverts.
Haneke moved away from his early obsession with placing the audience in a position of self awareness for his next few films, although the concept never left his work. Code Unknown, marked his first collobaration with Juliette Binoche, and the film is another multi-stranded narrative which focuses of a group of people who come together in the opening scene and then spiral off in their disparate lives. Haneke here is commetning on the lack of communication and alienation felt between differing ethic and cultural backgrounds. The film is framed by scenes in a school for the deaf, as they try to communicate through actions. For me this is one of Haneke's most engaging and thought provoking films, and I still find myself pondering its brillance.
The Piano Teacher is possibly Haneke's most disturbing film as it deals with Issabella Huppert's piano tutor and her sado-masochistic tendencies which comes out when a student develops a crush on her, add to this some blatant Freudianism as Huppert's character tries to seduce her overbearing mother and you have a film which is equal parts brilliant and gross.
The next three films of Haneke were those which introduced me to his work, the highlight of which for me is The White Ribbon, an astonishing brilliant film about the seeds of facism, which like his other work are set in a specific location, in this instance Germany just before the outbreak of WW1, but the themes and ideas are universal.
Haneke is one of the most impressive, interesting and acclaimed directors working today and his clarity of vision across his entire filmography which is almost unparralled in modern cinema. I for one will be anticipating his next feature with baited breath. If he can surpass Cache and The White Ribbon, who knows just how good a film it could be.