Johnny Simmons

Cee is soaking up the sun unaware of the imminent library sex to come in a few hours. How’s the heat treating you?

I can't put my finger on why, but I love this post Rich (Wide Screen World) does on Woody's Manhattan. I really need to see that one again, of all the Woody films I've seen it's the only one I've seen once - I can hardly remember it. And in other news, I still haven't seen Midnight in Paris.Ugh.

                 

Emmy nominees are coming up soon (Emmy conversation continue with me and Ryan) and Kate Winslet is essentially a shoo-in for her work on Mildred Pierce (check out Jose's ten best moments from a few months back). Well Alex reviews the work of the original Mildred - Joan Crawford's Oscar winning performance.

                      

Nicholas (Anomalous Review) puts forth a rousing defense of Keira Knightley in Atonement, although the word defense suggests that there is something damning about the performance which needs to be defended. I love the film and Keira in it, but I know Keira is not loved by all, which is a shame. She was the MVP in Never Let Me Go only last year.

             

Nathaniel's (The Film Experience) poll on memorable Best Actress characters of the 90 gave Jodie Foster the edge for the 91-95 women. I'm not that fond of Clarice Starling or The Silence of the Lambs, but CS (Big Thoughts From A Small Mind) offers of a great write-up on its longevity. I re-watch is in order when I get some time, I suppose.

     

In just a few paragraphs Paolo (Okinawa Assault) manages to touch on some significant things in Notes on a Scandal. I just love Cate Blanchett as Sheba. And, on the topic of Cate being excellent Norma (The Flick Chicks) pays tribute to her work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, another performance I adore. Where was her Oscar nomination? Heck, not even a Globe nod.

Ben (Runs Like A Gay) has some harrowing words about The Conspirator. I want to see this if only because Robin Wright Penn is delightful (she made The Private Lives of Pippa Lee so much better than it deserves) but he's not impressed with the film.

With only two writing credits to his name William Monahan has already established a type in his films. Like its predecessor, the narrative of London Boulevard begins with its protagonist’s expulsion from the penitentiary. Colin Farrell isn’t nearly as explosive as Billy Costigan, although he too has been to jail for violent tendencies. Like the tagline – the very trite “Not Every Criminal Wants to Be One” – suggests Mitchell isn’t devoted to the crime lifestyle. His friend Billy (a surprisingly in-form Ben Chaplin), part of an organisation of loan-sharks takes him under his wing and in a string of happenstance incidents Mitchell ends up on the wrong side of a gang war.

The biggest credit of London Boulevard is the hotchpotch of actors that decorate it. Monahan has an ear for dialogue, so when London Boulevard is at its best it gives supporting players like Anna Friel’s kooky sister, David Thewlis austere actor or Ben Chaplin’s officious boor a brilliant chance to submit some inspired performances but Monahan approaches the entire thing in such a bipolar manner at times that he seems unable to discern which story he wants to tell and the characters come off the worst for it, none more than Keira Knightley’s Charlotte. She is the reclusive young actor who Mitchell becomes a bodyguard for and it’s easily the most puzzling aspect of the film, already plagued with a number of question marks. In a more structured the reluctant chemistry between Farrell and Knightley might have been more successful, but despite the former’s striking sophistication and the latter’s fine attempts at suggesting deeper issues with her character Monahan’s doesn’t really allow the tenuous relationship the two share to go anywhere.

It’s not an overstatement to say that Monahan is at the root of the faults of London Boulevard – after all, he is the writer and director of the entire film. I’m loathe to make an excess of comparisons to The Departed, but I’ve got little else to go on when considering his technique and it occurs to me that whereas he was working on a well defined paradigm with the move from Infernal Affairs to The Departed he’s not as lucky with London Boulevard. He’s adapting a novel this time, and as good as he is with actual dialogue he doesn’t yet have a gift for distinguishing appropriate structure – it’s something that London Boulevard lacks terribly. It’s not so much that it’s wrought with plot-holes, as it is inorganic with the movement from subplot to subplot.

There’s the distinct sense of a better movie existing below the surface, and there’s also a stronger sense of the actors make vivid attempts at giving a better performance than the movie allows them to. London Boulevard is hardly a wasted effort, there’s a number of things to take from it – for example, Monahan does have talent, Anna Friel could make for a brilliant character actress, and Colin Farrell has the ability to command the screen even in less inspired fare. It’s not completely rewarding, but it’s worth the effort, if only to point out its flaws.

             

I must admit that when I heard that Hailee Steinfeld was rumoured to be the lead in an upcoming adaptation of Romeo & Juliet I was less than enthused. I’m not against remakes by principals, but I don’t think anyone will ever be able to top Zeffreli’s 1968 production – unless they do some revolutionary adaptation. I’m not even too keen on the idea that Steinfeld would be closer to the actual age of Juliet – what will the MPAA say about simulated sex between two fourteen year olds? I don’t even want to go down that road, I’ve already begun to digress. Instead of another version of Romeo & Juliet I’d love for some of Shakespeare’s other works to get (credible) cinematic treatment.

I’m not a big fan of Thandie Newton, but even when I don’t like her performances I’m conscious that she has talent waiting to burst forth. I loved her last year in For Colored Girls where she had some excellent moments through soliloquies. And, we all know, Shakespeare loves his soliloquies. Adriana is a basic female archetype of Shakespeare. She’s halfway between loving wife and annoying shrew and I’d like to see Thandie do a film retaining her British accent. The character has one of the best female soliloquies – it has loud dramatic moments, and lighter comedic ones and it’d be interesting seeing Thandie tackle it.

I consider Macbeth to be even more iconic of a character than Macbeth – that being said I loathe the Orson Welles version which amps up his evils turning it into something almost farcical. Fiennes is a brilliant actor, and he’s also thoroughly British which is often a good thing when Shakespeare is in the mix. I’m waiting anxiously to see what he does with Coriolanus, and depending on how good it is I think it’d be great for him to follow it up with Macbeth – one of Shakespeare’s most tortured souls. And, I’ve even got an idea for his wife below...

It seems like such a strange thing to say, but Keira Knightley seems built for a cross-dressing Shakespeare role. In the same way that Gwyneth Paltrow’s Viola could have passed off the boyishness, I could see Keira doing the same and what better role than Rosalind in As You Like It? I always feel moved to defend Keira when she’s accused of lack of range for holding on to period films, but I can’t keep beating a dead horse. Rosalind is, above all else, witty and fun and considering how excellent Keira was as the witty and fun Elizabeth Bennett this seems like a no-brainer. Get Joe Wright to direct and Rosamund Pike or Romola Garai to star as her cousin and we could have a hit on our hands.

This one is such a no-brainer, for me. I suppose it’s only because Shakespeare is so rarely adapted to the screen as of late, but I can’t believe that Blanchett has never done a Shakespearean piece on film. Most probably remember Lady Macbeth as one of Shakespeare most morally reprehensible women, but the way the character is written there are so many interpretations to run with. She’s nowhere near villainous for me, and is just the right amounts of tenacious and ambiguous that I’d love to see Cate tackle.

There’s a scene in Massy Tadjedin’s Last Night where Sam Worthington’s Michael makes scrambled eggs for his wife Joana. The way that Tadjedin shoots, and writes, the film you sense that she is making an attempt to shoot the scene in some semblance of real-time with the appearance of as little editing as possible. He cracks a couple of eggs, adds some milk and salt; whisks it for all of ten seconds; fries it for all of ten more and then serves it. It’s the slightest of gripes, but it sort of encapsulates my bigger issues with the film. In the same way Michael couldn’t possibly have made scrambled eggs in that span of time, I have no belief in the veracity of a four year marriage between him and Joana. The ingredients are there for a midnight argument about potential infidelity to set it all in motion, but when Keira’s Joana gets jealous at a party it seems inauthentic - just like that plate of scrambled eggs.

As rudimentary as it is, the impetus for the film seems vaguely inspired. A married couple spend a night apart and both ruminate on issues of fidelity. There’s a subtle – if overworked – irony to be found in their indecisiveness even as Tadjedin roots the films in that same uncertainty with the film’s clever title Last Night. Is it the marriage’s last night or will what happened last night be a defining moment in their marriage? Who knows? It begins in the most mundane of ways. Michael and Joana head to a party and in indiscreet pat which Eva Mendes’ Laura pays to her co-worker (Michael) is taken into context. The very fact that Laura is being played by Mendes all but assures us that she’s a more than just sensual temptress not just a little in touch with the more physical side of womanhood. Naturally, Joana – always perceptively – wonders why he never mentioned how alluring his co-worker was, which leads the film into one of its first moments of imprecision. For a marriage that seems essentially fine, languid even, the fight which Joana picks seems ridiculous even if Tadjedin  manages – in theory – to accomplish that mundane nature of arguments between the restless married.

When Michael heads off to his business meeting, with Laura no doubt, and Joana runs into her ex-boyfriend (or current?) slickly played by Guillame Canet, who gives the film’s finest performance, we know that Massy Tadjedin is intent on splitting our main couple up to test their relationship. The thing is, the film spends such little time establishing any legitimacy of said relationship. True, it’s difficult to have interest in Worthington and Mendes as a couple – if only because Worthington seems altogether more at ease with Knightley. But, the audience feels no sense of trepidation at the continuous “will-they-or-won’t-they” issue; it ends up becoming a “why-don’t-they-just-do-it-already” issue.

So, in the end, the film ends up becoming an undercooked serving of eggs. Massy Tadjedin thinks it enough just to put a quartet of fairly attractive actors ranging from good to competent. None of the actors could be accused of giving terrible performances, though Keira’s natural cadence renders her storyline more interesting by default. Last Night is competent enough, it moves along capably but without zest, so when it ends with what should be a cliff-hanger of sorts you’re left there not hateful of what’s come before but indifferent. 

Last year when I heard that the (allegedly) seminal novel Never Let Me Go was being adapted to film I was torn whether or not I should read it first. Generally, the trend is to always read the novel first because the book will never be a complete adaptation, but that’s the very reason that – where I can help it – I always ignore the literary version of any work until after I’ve seen the film. And yet, when the credits rolled for Never Let Me Go I couldn’t help but feel that I’d only been given a fraction of the story. I had that palpable of something – not quite disappointment, but dissatisfaction... Our story is set at Hailsham, a school, we know there’s something amiss from the way the children walk around almost as automatons – and it’s not because they’re “British”. We soon realise that the entire student population are clones of real people, the clones exist to provide body parts to their originals – and after a few operations they eventually die, before reaching middle age. Cloning is the sort of thing that’s become a bit too blasé to root a story, overexposure to the topic is probably the reason. The theme of cloning soon becomes secondary to a love triangle. Ruth, we discern immediately is not someone to root for – her child version has unusually quick eyes and a gait evocative of Briony Tallis. Kathy is our heroine, a seemingly pleasant girl who takes a liking to the school misfit Tommy. The two seem like a fine pair, until one day she happens upon Tommy and Ruth in an embrace...and we flash forward a decade or so later and the story continues.

There was a bad taste in my mouth for a good deal of the film’s second half, I’m not sure if Ishiguro’s novel or Alex Garland’s adaptation is to blame but to balance the already tired cloning premise against the increasingly tawdry love triangle deprives the film of all the poignancy that the actors keep trying to inject into it. And what’s exasperating is that the film has all the makings of being a good one. The costume designs are way less ornate and much more sensible that you’d anticipate, the art direction is inspired, its beautifully shot and the acting is fine...but all those parts does not a good film make. Garland, and director Mark Romanek, to their credit, frames the film beautifully (almost a bit too meticulously at times, truth be told). The three acts unfold fluidly – from Hailsham, to the cottages where the trio are in a sort of limbo in between adulthood and childhood and the final act where everything comes to a close. The unfortunate thing about his framing technique, though, is we end up seeing the film so distinctly as three acts and not one whole. The first act is fair, the second act is lovely and the third act is a disappointment. And the thing is, as good as the second act it epitomises the film’s fatal flaw – Ruth.

I sort of hate how the performances of the trio have become judged, Carey has been given the highest laurels by critics, the blogosphere has given their confidence to Garfield – but for me Keira Knightley emerges as the strongest of the trio, and it’s unfortunate that her performance won’t be able to go very far because she’s saddled with a character that’s so narrowly constricted it’s difficult to watch at times, even if she’s giving the film’s best performance. The film is already suffering from having a pedestrian love-story triangle and having Ruth as the impetus that prevents the affiliation between Tommy and Kathy from thriving. Thus, those last twenty minutes from the film where Ruth is expelled and Tommy and Kathy continue their journey feels violently flat. I’m all for a movie having us guessing until the end, but the “resolution” that the film reaches feels forced and makes so many of more interesting of the plot-points of the second act redundant. One of the film’s strongest sequences occurs as the gang accompanies the gang to a downtown location to seek out the woman who may be her original, the resulting revelation of whether or not the woman is Ruth’s original is handled beautifully – but in retrospect it all seems for naught because the issues raised from the confrontation are never addressed again.

There’s no denying that Never Let Me Go is a movie with promise, and there’s no doubt that something will pique your interest about it. Sally Hawkins, with about fifteen minutes of screen time, carves a multifaceted character that I kept hoping would reappear, the chemistry among the lead trio is splendid even if I’m not altogether convinced of the Carey/Andrew dynamic...but potential doesn’t make a good film. Technically superb, but maddeningly hollow (like another much feted 2010 entry) Never Let Me Go would have benefited from a more innovative script.

C+ (B-?)

Though I’m not exactly consistently blogging this weekend (other than meme) this Scene analysis has been imminent for some weeks now. My love for Atonement should be no secret by now (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE) and it’s only natural that I’d eventually focus on a scene from it. This is probably my favourite scene from the entire film and I’m teaming up with the clever Yojimbo from Let’s Not Talk About Movies. Yojimbo actually does a weekly “Don’t Make A Scene” feature (though his much more educational, mine is just selfish ranting) so this week we’re teaming up to look at the fountain scene in Atonement…but of course, with stipulations. I’ll be focusing on everything visual in the scene – expressions, editing, cinematography, costumes, art direction and such (I’m materialistic like that) and Yojimbo will be assessing the sound and sound effects, the music, the readings of dialogue and such (incidentally, he’s a sound editor so this is right up his alley). So voila, here are my thoughts on the Fountain Scene – the visuals… (All the pictures of courtesy of Yojimbo, he went crazy with them – which I think is just great).

                           

Of course, before we get to that beautiful moment at the fountain we must cut back to the images of Cecilia running in the woods. It just looks gorgeous… It’s strange, though, that Cecilia who seems like the orthodox bourgeoisie English girl of the time (very comfortable in her parents’ wealth) would be so at home in the flora. As the script says, she runs through enjoying the sheer exhilaration of movement – it almost sounds like poetry.

All this of course, played almost simultaneously with those images of Briony at the window. I still marvel at Ronan, perhaps not as skillful as the best child actor but still able to be so morose which is obviously unlike her natural disposition. Vocally, perhaps another actor could have excelled but her expressions are perfect…what is she thinking in that shot? It’s almost as if she’s planning their fates right there.

Then we revert to the past for the duration of the scene.Cecilia is still revelling in the woods.

She walks into the house, I love this particular shot, and it’s the only time that Cecilia has any significant contact with Mrs. Turner. I often wonder what their relationship (if any) was like before the episode, is Cecilia only interested in poor persons like Robbie or is she generally affable? I love too how Brenda Blethyn is always ready to immerse herself into her roles (there’s no hint of her previous part alongside Keira and Wright).

This is another shot I love; not subtle at all but the framing of Cecelia by the boys in blue (which just happens to be the same colour shirt as Robbie) is a nice touch. And that house really is majestic.

And then into her bedroom. This is a real house, and yet there’s no sense of harmony. The kitchen’s greenness then to the dark brown of the living room and then the pale beige here. There’s obviously disharmony within the people live there too, but I’m projecting – as always.

It’s as if she has the world of troubles on her (very small and pointy) shoulders.

And while we’re on the topic of her thinness, Keira almost has a boy’s figure – and she carries herself without pretension but Cecilia is still completely feminine.

She glances back out of the window. We get a picture of her in reflected in the mirror, which will happen again soon.

Beautiful shot…Keia’s legs and Robbie looking up at her. Lovely..

She’s really bossy as she asks for that cigarette, but we still like her nonetheless. This next shot – wide shot – is my favourite of the entire scene. The old (but still regal) stone surrounded by the greenness, and our prospective lovers coming down the steps.

Even though he’s lighting her cigarette, they’re really quite far apart.

It’s so significant, they’re talking all the while, and not only is Cecilia a “safe distant” away from him she’s not even looking in his direction. Robbie, of course, is not the least bit affronted.
              
This shot doesn’t add much – but I like it nonetheless, for some reason…

He breaks off, looks away for a moment; then turns back to her.

Once again he run off behind her...what is with him and running (remember the train?)

CECILIA I’m all right, thanks.

 But Robbie persists, reaching for the vase.

ROBBIE You take the flowers.

That expression on McAvoy's face is particularly vague, I like it - he's probably thinking what to do, what to do?

Cecilia looks at him, horrified.

Love that line reading.

Then she steps over the lip of the fountain and lowers herself into it.

This is obvious foreshadowing (not just me overanalysing). Cecilia in the water is a beautiful image and it’s shot very delicately.

...and she comes out.

Even though Robbie pays her a look momentarily…that shot of him above is a perfect example of James doing so much. It’s Robbie completely casting off his outward show of irreverence, we can see him almost wanting to apologise.

She gather her things to leave...

…and I do love to watch her walk away….

…such a beautiful shot of his hand on the water with that singular lily, there.

…but the scene cannot be ended on such a beautifully peaceful note. We must return to the person who started it all – Briony….

The look of a devil? Not quite...but something wicked.