A blog by Tim George. Follow my other work at http://www.tewahanui.nz/by/tim.george, http://www.denofgeek.com/authors/tim-george, and theatrescenes.co.nz.
Tuesday, 28 May 2024
Edge of Darkness (Martin Campbell, 1985): Into The Shadows
Sunday, 26 May 2024
Sometimes I Think About Dying (Rachel Lambert, 2023)
“Fran’s dead and I did not do it!”
A sweet and intimate portrait of loneliness, Sometimes I Think About Dying is a movie I really like.
It is rare to see a movie take on a specific character’s point of view which does not treat at least some of that specificity with ridicule.
Fran Larsen is someone who is comfortable with her life. And one of those comforts is the titular fantasies.
The film never makes Fran a figure of ridicule or pity. Ridley emphasised that she saw Fran is not unhappy with her life, and that sense of confidence is present.
There is nothing particularly macabre about Fran’s daydreams.
Her visions of death are always post-mortem. There is no gore or signs of decay. She is never shown in the act of suicide. One gets a sense she is getting a sense of solitude.
In the first 10-15 minutes, the film follows Fran’s daily routine. We get extended, mostly static shots of Fran at work, home and in her fantasies. The film is so effective at immersing the viewer that when other characters (like Robert) try to interact with Fran, it feels disruptive.
There is a sense of the character’s subjectivity - both a comfort in isolation, and a vague panic when she has to socialise with anyone.
Ridley is effective in the main role. There is nothing that big or histrionic about her performance - this is a small, microbehavioural performance that is designed to fade into the background.
As Robert Naser, the catalyst for Fran’s opening up, Dave Merheje suits the low key vibe.
Because the film around him is at such a simmer, he seems like a live wire. Where Fran is silent, Robert never stops talking. He feels the need to fill the silence.
Like Fran, he is seeking connection.
Outside of the main character, the film manages to create a sense of characters and a specific world, in terms of that sense of lived-in, organic set of established relationships.
That sense of depth to these characters is what helps create that disconnect between Fran and the world around her - particularly toward the film’s finale, when Fran goes from being alone to being truly lonely.
Maybe this comes from working in an office, but this film is so good in its depiction of office dynamics - there is an ease and vague inanity to the way the various denizens interact.
A lovely mood piece, the film is more about capturing a character’s mental state than larger, more dramatic revelations.
Another highlight of the movie is Dabney Morris’ score. It is romantic and swoon-y, creating a dissonance with the film’s visuals. There are times it recalls the effervescent orchestral pop of Henry Mancini.
If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!
Saturday, 25 May 2024
OUT NOW: Furiosa (George Miller, 2024)
The tale of Furiosa (Anya Taylor-Joy) and her quest for vengeance against the man (Chris Hemsworth) who murdered her mother.
The simple fact is that no Furiosa prequel was going to be able to live up to a single close up of Theron’s eyes. And Furiosa is at its least interesting when it is dealing with Furiosa’s rise through the ranks of Immortan Joe’s (Lachy Hulme) colony.
It is probably best to try and keep Fury Road out of mind. And it is definitely a movie worth watching.
My first pull quote idea was that it is the Beyond Thunderdome to Fury Road’s Road Warrior. It is completely different in structure and even tone. Whereas Fury Road was pared to the bone, and limited in location and timeframe, this follow-up is an epic tale taking in decades, going back to the title character’s childhood.
With her exaggerated features, Anya Taylor Joy is almost designed for George Miller’s universe. Her eyes are such a focus of the mise-en-scene, she spends most of her early scenes partially masked. When she talks (rarely) it is almost disconcerting.
Special mention should be given to child actress Alyla Browne who plays young Furiosa for the first third of the movie. She holds the movie’s centre, even more so, I would judge, than Taylor-Joy.
Not that Taylor-Joy is bad, but she never catches the character’s blazing fire - there is something too remote and collected about the actor that I was never fully invested.
There are times in the movie where she almost fades into the background. The film feels more like an ensemble piece than perhaps intended, and the key turning points - like the loss of her arm and her friend Imperator Jack (Tom Burke) - feel less impactful.
I was wondering why they did not hit, and it took me a while to figure it out - they are essentially repeating the trauma of her mother’s death. I can see the intention - making Dementus the key link in preventing her from returning home, but it still feels like diminishing returns.
That being said, when the movie is about Furiosa and her nemesis, Dementus, the movie is on fire.
Played by Chris Hemsworth with a childish self-centredness, Dementus is one of the more fully-rounded and least powerful antagonists in the wider franchise.
A spiritual descendant of Toecutter and Lord Humungus, Dementus a rootless bandit who has given up on the world, he is either betrayed by, or betrays, his followers. And he cannot even remember killing Furiosa’s mother, derailing whatever satisfaction she is seeking.
Dementus is the anti-Max - it is implied that, like the Road Warrior, he had an unseen life that was destroyed. Unlike the franchise antihero, he has made himself a part of the chaos around him. Dementus is unable to grow or change.
Most horrifyingly, he cannot even rise to the level of Immortan Joe.
Does this movie justify its existence?
Not quite - as already stated, there is something to be said for leaving backstory to the imagination. There is a literalism to the storytelling that starts to wear - Dementus destroying all of Furiosa’s hopes would probably work without him literally shouting that in her face.
What gives Furiosa a heartbeat is its focus on character. Unlike other prequels, which seem overly concerned with the details (Solo’s dice), the focus is on a character’s transformation - the problem is that that transformation is not nearly as profound as the film thinks it is.
I might have been more onboard if the finale did not try to link the movie so directly to what comes next, and if the credits were not intercut with flashes of key moments from Fury Road.
It is meant to create an additional catharsis, but all it did was deflate my feelings toward the movie compared with its predecessor.
Friday, 24 May 2024
Mad Max - The Road Warrior (George Miller, 1981)
Following a nuclear war, society has been reconfigured around two things - weapons and gasoline.
In the middle of the irradiated wasteland, a warlord known as the Lord Humungus (Kjell Nilsson) lays siege to a small community based around a refinery.
He has cut off all means of escape. Hope is lost.
Until a stranger named Max (Mel Gibson) rides into town (the refinery)...
Following the extended slowburn of its predecessor, Road Warrior feels like an evolution.
This movie is the perfect example of world-building, where every character, costume and bit of set design carries a sense of history.
This also sets up the pattern - Max stumbling into a new story and providing assistance, gaining a sliver of humanity before stumbling off back into the desert.
It is unbelievable to write this, but after Fury Road, this movie feels smaller in scale and rather austere - I remember the car chase taking up more time!
As with the first movie, you can see the genesis of ideas he would continue to explore in the later movies:
The feral kid serves as the template for the tribe of lost children forming a new society. The warrior woman (Virginia Hey) whose uneasy rapport with Max would be expanded upon as the basis for Max and Furiosa.
While those germs are there, they do not negate the impact of the movie. Unlike contemporary franchises, they are also not Easter eggs for future sequels.
Like all the Mad Max movies, The Road Warrior is a completely singular entry. You do not need to have seen the original to enjoy this one.
The first thing that struck me on this viewing is its sense of confidence.
Following the opening montage, the way the film quickly introduces us to the world is so elegant.
We open on Max behind the wheel, followed by another vehicle.
That car moves forward to reveal the more improvised secondary vehicle, and then the Wes (Vernon Wells) on the back of his cycle, in full post-apocalyptic regalia.
In this moment, an entire genre and aesthetic are set that movies continue to riff off of.
The film is also more tonally secure, threading moments of humour amid the mayhem:
The comic beat of the gyro captain (Bruce Spence) tied up to the Rube Goldberg-style assembly of a shotgun with the trigger tied to a string; the game of telephone between Pappagalo and the mechanic.
There are too many to mention.
The film’s sense of scope and scale is still incredible.
Fury Road might have pushed the maximalist post-apocalyptic aesthetic further, but The Road Warrior is still jaw dropping as an example of purely in-camera spectacle.
There are so many wide shots of the exteriors, landscapes of cars driving, the expanse of the refinery and the enemy encampment.
With his hyperbolic muscles and armoured hockey mask, the Lord Humungous feels like an extension of that new sense of scale.
The Humungous represents something of an evolution in the way the franchise imagines its antagonists.
Where the first film’s Toecutter was anarchic and violent for its own sake, Humungus wants to be a conqueror.
However, his ‘empire’ is built purely on conquest, and his army collapses once he dies. He is purely a creature of violence - the opposite of Mike Preston’s more strategic Pappagallo.
It is interesting that after Road Warrior, Mad Max’s foes become twisted versions of Pappagallo’s dream: Aunty Entity is a savvy politician who helped build a town; Immortan Joe is a dictator with control of resources.
Despite the film’s violence, what sticks out about the film is how much life and death matters. Compared with Mad Max ripoffs, and also compared with other action movies, what stands out about these movies is how much they care about people.
Like the little pieces of set dressing and costuming which feel like they have a reason for existing and a sense of history, there are no minor characters: the Wes’s despair at his lover’s death; the wallflower guy with the unique eyebrows who - with one bolt - prevents the refinery from being overrun.
Fury Road was slightly more overt, but that focus on the preciousness of life is a mainstay of the franchise. Even after the world has fallen into chaos, what defines ‘heroism’ in these movies is the value people place on each other.
Wednesday, 22 May 2024
The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie, 1980)
Harold’s big plans start to go up in smoke when acquaintances and businesses are attacked by an unknown force.
Pushed into a corner, Harold drops all graces to destroy his new foes…
A classic rise and fall gangster movie, The Long Good Friday is a jolt of energy.
I only watched it recently, and it feels so vital. From Francis Monkman’s electrifying, pulsing score to John Mackenzie’s muscular direction, it is a movie that feels both classical in approach and still contemporary.
Ironically the movie is succeeding at what the central character fails to do: relevance.
Played by Hoskins at full tilt, Shand is a figure of epic tragedy.
Harold spends most of the movie trying to present himself as a new man - more sophisticated and law abiding (he constantly refers to his gang as a corporation).
While Shand foreshadows certain elements of the UK’s future (his dream is the Olympics in London in 1988), he is rooted in its past.
Hoskins plays Harold as man who thinks he is changing, but is completely oblivious to the fact that he has not changed, and cannot change.
Harold is not a man of the future - he is incapable of progression or evolution. He is a human volcano, who only understands life in terms of violence.
He must be on top at all costs, which makes it impossible for him to deal with anyone.
Harold’s empire is built on forces he is unaware of, and cannot control - his business is built on Irish labour, and his offsider Jeff (Derek Thompson) has been mediating relations with the IRA.
While his actions have led to the film’s drama, Jeff is not really an antagonist- he is just trying to run Harold’s business.
It is clear that he is the reason why Harold is able to believe he can go straight.
You get the sense that Jeff has not told Harold about the deal with Harris and the IRA because he knows Harold would blow it up.
This is proven true after Jeff’s death when Harold just kills Harris’s IRA contacts rather than pay them to keep the wheels turning.
Part of the movie’s tragedy is that Harold seems to be aware of himself - his scream when he realises Jeff is dead is the wail of a man who knows he is doomed. In one savage instant, all the class pretensions are gone.
His final act of betrayal is a blunt metaphor for his fate - the bodies of the dead IRA men fall into a race track, causing a multi-car pile-up and a massive explosion.
The final scene is monumental - I have seen it before, and even on its own, it is a masterclass, as Harold realises the game is up.
I was late to the party on Bob Hoskins. I only really plugged into his work after he passed. I watched Mona Lisa and was absolutely bowled over.
As Harold, Hoskins is terrifying but completely, horrifyingly human.
Hoskins’ ability to convey the helplessness of this monster is hypnotising. He captures the deepest fear behind the swagger, and the relentless desire to keep moving forward. He is a man chased by the ghosts of his past.
Helen Mirren is fantastic as his girlfriend - even she represents the kind of upper class presentation he aspires to.
Just a great movie.
If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!