|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Peter Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Jackson. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Heavenly Creatures is an especially succinct film (especially for a quasi-biopic) clocking in at just about 100 minutes. What makes it so special, though, is how saturated with different themes it is and for me it’s the power and implicit danger to be found in imagination that always me thinking when the credits role. I was one of those children who grew up allowed to watch even the goriest of films, so I was Heavenly Creatures well before I was into my teens. The ever looming figure of Diello was a constant source of terror for me the first time I saw it and while re-watching it this week, Diello remains as the most visceral source of terror in the film and Jackson’s decisions to mark the alternate universe with clay figures instead of actors always makes me ruminate.
The first shot of Diello is so incidental as the bedridden Juliet makes him in the hospital. It’s all about perspective, and there’s little terror to be found in something so small and unanimated. Even that close-up of the “toy” is hardly appalling....and yet...
And it’s such a marked difference from Diello’s next appearance, less than ten minutes later when the priest arrives to “deliver” Juliet. His image is obscured by the priest, and yet it’s terrifying.
Even though that baleful image of Diello is Juliet’s projection, but it never fails to shock me – even now that I’m all grown up, sort of. It underscores the whole issue of perspective, really, which is something the film touches on effectively. It’s one thing for us to create imaginary worlds, children are so constantly playing “house” with their toys – pretending they’re real, even some in their teens but we take comfort in the fact that these things can’t really happen which is why my favourite shot of the film always haunts me.
It goes to show that my favourite shot of the film is also the one I find most horrific, and there really is little that’s expressly horrific about the shot of the clay figures in the throes of passion, but never before has lovemaking seemed so menacing. Which makes me return to my question: why clay? Had Jackson realised the imaginary world as if it were real this shot would have none of its profundity but it marks – for me – the film’s strongest theme. As much as we try to immerse ourselves, there’s something significantly grotesque about forcing imaginary things to be real. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it makes me think of the Tennyson poem “The Lady of Shallot” – when the woman in the tower, indicative of the artist in the imaginary world, goes down into the real world she’s destroyed – the two can’t mix. And it’s the same with the clay figures. The act of sex seems almost like an explicitly human which only underscores the unnaturalness of the image, before they were strange....but now they just seem particularly disturbing. There’s something distinctly awry in the images which their realisation in clay emphasises. It’s a brilliant decision on Jackson’s part, he’s always been a visual director and the decision here is not just aesthetically based it highlights one of the film’s more profound themes – the dichotomy between illusion and reality.
This is a part of Nathaniel's series Hit Me With Your Best Shot.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Cinematic Knowledge: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 11:15
“You offer it to me freely...?”
“I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this.”
“In place of the Dark Lord, you would have a Queen, not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth...all shall love me and despair!”
“I pass the test...”
“I will diminish and go into the west and remain Galadriel.”
Lessons Learned: Galadriel is one scary Elf Queen (and incidentally one of the the strongest characters in the series).
Cate Blanchett is awesome and yet completely scary.
(She's signed up for The Hobbit, can't deny that makes me happy.)
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
It’s a strange thing, but often when I hear the name The Lord of the Rings the first image that comes to mind is that of Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel. When we consider that her time in the epic is merely fractional I wonder why. I hate to think it’s my nepotism but perhaps it’s the simple fact that her ethereal voice is what introduces us to the piece. I often think of Cate as a voice actress (her brilliant acting often depends on how well she manages to alter her voice). So often I tie the goodness of her performance to the way she’s able to use her voice (liltingly, powerfully, coquettishly) and it’s important that her soothing voice leads us into the turbulent tale. To consider all that we perceive in a simple glance from Galadriel is testament to what Jackson is doing. The Lord of the Rings is BIG, but it’s not just about EXPOSITION. From the cantankerous farmer who appears for a bit to the protagonists of our tale, Jackson is intent on creating real people. It’s an estimable intent, but it’s easier said than done. We don’t get back-story for them, sometimes we only get a few moments and for all it’s attempting at The Lord of the Rings is no character study.
So much of this first part occurs in the Shire’s brightness that when we do get wind of the darkness in the real world it’s terrifying. It’s where Ian McKellen’s Gandalf is most necessary and most effective. McKellen has such a talent for working with expressions (and so quickly, too). In the twinkling of an eye he moves from deceptively relaxed to frighteningly austere. The Oscar snub heard around the world? No. That was some lineup and I could readily change my mind from McKellen to Broadbent to Hawke (and still make way for Kingsley). It is something curious that McKellen, known for his inspired takes on Shakespeare reaches cult status (in my head, okay) for taking on the role of Tolkien’s mythical creation. It’s not the effect wears off, because The Towers and The Return of the King are still admittedly brilliant in their own way. It’s just that there’s something extraordinary about that very first one that makes me have such an affinity for The Fellowship of the Rings.
Darren of the very prolific M0vie Blog writes:
“I think this is the benchmark for fantasy in the twenty-first century, and perhaps the most popular example of an "unfilmable" movie transitioning to screen. It's still an accomplishment, even after the success and the Oscars and the massive cultural impact, but I can't imagine how impossible it must have seemed when it was originally imagined. And that's perhaps my favourite thing about it - without seeing the film itself, it's almost impossible to imagine the sheer scale of it all. It's also some of the most impressive CGI I have ever seen, Avatar included. However, what's truly astonishing is that Jackson finds the heart of this story, and can guide the viewer to it. Despite the scale and the fantasy, it's a strangely human story.”
I all but devoured the book before I was old enough to grasp the scope of it, and as far as adaptations go The Fellowship of the Rings like its successors is anything but infallible. It’s less a slight at Tolkien and more my leniency that makes me say that I like the changes that occur in the cinematic incarnation more than its literary counterpart. And if you know how much of a literary snob I can be, you’ll know that that’s a big thing. It’s more than the staunchness of adaptation (or lack thereof) though. Literature is language based and, at its height, cinema is a visual medium. I’d watch The Fellowship of the Rings (all 3 hours of it) on silent. It’s not just the CGI though, but I remember The Fellowship in fragments. I have the image of Gandalf’s magic fireworks or Galadriel’s mirror or Arwen’s incantation in the river. On the note of Arwen, it’s easily my favourite deviation from the novel. I’m only infinitesimally displeased that Tolkien’s actual story is so devoid of significant female vigour and I applaud Jackson for giving Arwen power without making it too “Amazonian”. Call it what you will, but Arwen’s journey with Frodo on horseback is one of my favourite scenes of the entire series though there’s not really that much going on. Perhaps it’s because that particular bit of the score is my favourite, or maybe it’s just the climax of the water on the Wraiths – I don’t know, whatever it is it’s proof of how brilliant Jackson and company are.
So many actors were swept to the forefront with the films, though few utilised their status as much as Viggo Mortensen who went on to become one of the decade’s strongest actors. On that note, Heather of the classy Movie Mobsters is with me on becoming a believer of Mortensen with the series.
“At first viewing of the Fellowship I had not read J.R.R. Tolkiens acclaimed novel. In fact I had such disdain for Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler that I refused to watch the film. Not only did I fall madly in love with Viggo and Liv, but I was shocked by how amazing the film and the story itself were. The screenplay adapted by Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson himself, was done with such care for the original work of Tolkien and such great lengths were met to keep the integrity of the character’s and their journeys that this is without a doubt some of the best literature translated to the big screen ever. Every aspect of this story was done with the admiration of a true fan and the brilliance of an amazing filmmaker. The Fellowship of the Ring is what going to the movies is all about, and the best part is it’s only the beginning of the journey.”
Heather touches on what’s, possibly, the crux of the brilliance of the The Fellowship of the Rings and the entire trilogy in fact. Jackson is a fan of the franchise, he loves what he’s doing and ultimately no amount of skill, proficiency or flair can combat the love for one’s trade. All three films in the trilogy exude that, and none more than this first instalment. When this does get posted I’ll still be on my break…so in place of what should be a MEME post I’ll point out that The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my favourite series of related films….and this first instalments falls at #3 on my list of favourite films.
People, remember I'm MIA: automated posting.
Friday, 8 January 2010
James Cameron wasn’t the only director making an anticipated return to the screen this year. Peter Jackson’s last film the 2005 King Kong, although well regarded was seen as more of a remake than a true “Jacksonite” adaptation so The Lovely Bones was inadvertently seen as his first film since the blockbuster films about middle earth. Like The Lord of the Rings it was an adaptation of a novel and like The Lord of the Rings Jackson wrote it with partnering scribe Philipa Boyd. It centres on a young girl – Susie Salmon, who after being raped and murdered by a neighbour tries to find peace in the “in-between” between heaven and earth as her family simultaneously tries to cope with her death.
Obviously, The Lovely Bones is not your typical drama. I’ve not read the source, but with a premise like that we can see that it’s more than just your typical familial drama, one with a supernatural twinge. And in some ways I suppose that Jackson is the perfect one to helm a project that seems to be so ostensibly incongruous. I liked The Lovely Bones. I should just get that out of the way immediately. Try as I might I could not ignore the dismal reviews. Nathaniel, Rasco, Alex were all less than forthcoming with praise. Jose was more obliging and MGK was a fan as was Kristopher. I didn’t know where I would fall, I was still anticipating this despite the reviews and coming out of it I knew it was not perfect, but I was not disappointed.
Saiorse Ronan, of Atonement fame, plays Susie. With her piercing blue eyes and her clear voice I’m tempted to call Ronan’s performance my favourite child performance of the last decade, and maybe even the one before that. The strength of The Lovely Bones lies completely in her hands and she handles it beautifully. Her performance is so self conscious and it truly is surprising considering how much she’s tasked with. She has to spend the entire film looking fourteen but growing years more and it all needs to be realistic as possible. This wasn’t going to be an easy task, but Ronan is able to deliver an especially profound performance that counteracts any of the films possible inconsistencies.
The acting of the cast is generally good, although none is as good as Ronan. Much has been said of the reportedly underused Susan Sarandon, and as Susie’s Grandmother she is particularly scintillating in her scenes. In a category where insubstantial performances like Holly Hunter, Michelle Williams, Frances McDormand and Kathy Bates have been recognised I’m confused as to why Sarandon hasn’t gotten more notices for her performance. Looking as unsullied as she did a decade ago Sarandon is charming and resonant in her role. Rachel Weisz all but matches her, and although she is relegated to a mere prop as the film winds down her performance [particularly in the first forty minutes] is especially profound. I don’t find Wahlberg as underwhelming as some. Certainly, he’s not as talented as his co-stars, but there is only so much that could be done with such a role. Wahlberg is not ineffective, just unremarkable. Tucci wouldn’t make my shortlist of Supporting Actors but I can’t fault his performance, as unsubtle as it is. In a strange way it works.
In fact, I can’t fault The Lovely Bones for its lack of subtlety. A film that centres on a young girl trapped between heaven and earth needs to be as clear as possible. In fact, I see The Lovely Bones as a bit of a fairy tale. Susan Salmon [like the fish she says] is projecting her thoughts on to the screen. We only find the moustached Stanly Tucci as overbearingly histrionic because we know up front he’s the murderer. A subtle serial killer wouldn’t have caught the attention of Susie’s sister, and would negate the culmination of the film. The Lovely Bones is the type of film I can see being lauded in the next generation even though being poorly received in this one. It is not a perfect film, but it’s as good as it could have gotten. I don’t think anyone taking this story could have done a more superior job than Jackson. I finished The Lovely Bones having the same feelings I did after seeing Cheri – what is that people are missing? I can’t say why The Lovely Bones hasn’t succeed, it’s not The Lord of the Rings, it’s perhaps not even the masterpiece some have called. But it is a good film. A very good film. Its lovers are few, but I’m one of them. Sorry, Alex.
B+
So I didn't like Up In the Air, but liked this...interesting.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Adapted ScreenplayBig Fish
Cold Mountain
Le Divorce
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Mystic River
Alt. Peter Pan, House of Sand & Fog, Freaky Friday
Big Fish was horribly snubbed by the Academy and every other major precursor in the big categories. It was an intelligent and poignant film and much of that depended on its screenplay. Easily the best of the lot for me, Mystic River and Cold Mountain battle it out for the runner up spot with the former just edging out in front.
Original Screenplay
Love ActuallyLost in Translation
Down With Love
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Something’s Gotta Give
Alt. Phone Booth, Finding Nemo, 21 Grams, Kill Bill
I never really went all out for Lost in Translation; it made me feel like I did with Sideways in 2004 – as if I was missing something. Down With Love had one of the silliest but self-aware script and it was second only to Something’s Gotta Give. I don't know, it's not that smart. But it hits me.
The DirectorsTier Two
Sofia Coppola, Lost in TranslationP. J. Hogan, Peter Pan
Alejandro Gonzalev Inarritu, 21 Grams
Joel Schumacher, Phone BoothAndrew Stanton, Finding Nemo
The NomineesTim Burton, Big Fish
Clint Eastwood, Mystic River
Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Anthony Minghella, Cold MountainGore Verbinski, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black
An easy five, but it's easy to rank them. If I had to I'd throw out one I'd throw out Verbinski first. Not because he's bad, but because they're all good. Eastwood's Mystic River is my favourite of his, but he'd go next. The picture is good, his direction is not the driving force. Neither is Minghella's Cold Mountain - his screenplay is the beacon there. So it's down to Burton and Jackson and it's actually really tough. I'd say Burton just for the maturity of the piece, but I'd be lying. Jackson it is.
So what are your thoughts on my choices?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
