Wednesday 31 May 2023

Blue is the Warmest Colour (Abdellatif Kechiche, 2013)

When teenager Adele (Adele Exarchopoulos) falls in love with Emma (Léa Seydoux), her whole life changes.


As the relationship progresses, and their lives diverge, Adele goes from experiencing the euphoria of first love to first heartbreak.


 
“…I have infinite tenderness for you. I always will. My whole life.”


Ten years later, Blue is the Warmest Colour is a wounded beast of a movie.


Time did not highlight its flaws - the critiques were there from the beginning, including from inside its own tent. Lead actresses Léa Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos were frank about the appalling way they were treated by co-writer - director Abdellatif Kechiche.


I did not watch Blue is the Warmest Colour in the cinema - I watched it about a year later, on YouTube. Someone had uploaded what I assumed was a rough cut - there were time codes along the top and bottom.


I always assumed I had not seen the released version, but based on this viewing, I noticed no differences, so maybe it was the released cut.


Last weekend, my local arthouse hosted an anniversary screening and I was curious to see it on the big screen.


The one element that reveals the movie’s flaws are the sex scenes - at least the full-length sequences.


I want to make a distinction here, before going into these scenes. There is a movement I have seen online where people are criticising sex scenes in movies for simply being there. I disagree with this stance - there is a puritanism to that line of argument that goes against my ideas of art and expression.  


In the context of Blue is the Warmest Colour, sex is important - to the central character, and for the story. The extended sex scenes are important - they are supposed to signify key moments in the couple's relationship.


They fail in a couple of different ways. 


Aesthetically, they almost feel out of sync with the movie around them: Over-lit and shot in extended wides and overheads, there is a chilly awkwardness to the blocking, and the actors show no sense of investment. 


Functionally, it never feels like you are watching the characters falling in love. Instead, it looks like what it is - a pair of actors struggling with a lack of choreography, purpose or knowledge of how this is supposed to go. There were moments where I found myself trying to figure out the logistics of specific shots. You know an erotic scene is not working when you are trying to guesstimate the actors’ heights, to work out where they were in relation to each other. 


You can feel the discomfort of the performers, and it feels like the filmmakers’ bullying tactics towards them are the spectacle being showcased, rather than the pleasure of the onscreen characters. 


I was thinking about it going in, but these scenes really got my internal monologue going. I spent the movie thinking about it on two levels - in one I was completely immersed in the diegesis the film was creating, and in the other I was questioning how it was created.  


Would the film have been better with a more collaborative and comfortable atmosphere? It is not a hard question to answer, and it left a bitter undertone to the whole viewing.


The actresses were lauded for their performances, and they remain the film’s strongest element - but it feels like a true sense of intimacy and understanding of the characters and themes is always just of reach. The film feels like it is striving for a sense of empathy that it cannot reach because it fundamentally lacks that capacity. And the film often feels like it is reflecting that absence.  


There are moments of intimacy and eroticism that work: Adele’s initial fantasy of Emma pleasuring her is genuinely erotic, filmed in an impressionistic style that builds from close ups of her blue hair to a final clench; the scene where Adele and Emma make love in her parents’ house feels more naturalistic, with lots of chatter and kissing.


There is plenty of nudity and sexuality in the film, and one could argue it is part of the film’s attempt to immerse us in the lives of the characters. With the previous examples I have mentioned, that seems to be the case, but there are other points where one has to question the film’s intentions (there are a lot of shots which either begin or end on a pan to Adele’s butt). 


The camera itself feels split, between  capturing a sense of intimacy and the character’s inner life, and a blunter, vaguely objective distance. And there are times where those choices work and do not: sometimes the attempts at intimacy feel like vaguely assembled coverage, and sometimes the focus on a single wide shot is effective, like in the scene when Adele lies down alone on the park bench where she first hung out with Emma. 

 

It is a rough, conflicted film - which makes me more interested to go back to it. 


Sometimes you go back to a film and you might completely change your opinion. And in this case, I feel cooler and more conflicted toward Blue. And that excites me. I feel like I will be returning to this film again.


On this occasion, it felt like the limitations of the filmmakers’ vision and experience were exposed.  


The other reason why I cannot shake it off is I cannot deny that it got to me again.


The film’s CPU, and saving grace, is Exarchopoulos.

 

Her open face is so exposed, so filled with the conflicting impulses of youth, that it overwhelms the movie.

 

Whatever criticisms I have, the power of that performance is undeniable.

 

The two scenes which always stayed with me remain the film’s two power blows: the break up scene, and the couple’s reunion at the coffee shop. 


If the two extended sex scenes are these messy, incoherent, wound-like obstructions in the movie’s attempt to bring us into the passion of this relationship, the break-up and attempted reconciliation overwhelm them.


There is a tenderness and ferocity to the way the actors are relating to each other that is palatable. 


The breakup is so awkward and violent in its emotions, it is legitimately stressful. It was giving me PTSD flashbacks to old family arguments. After spending almost three hours with these people and being in their shared world, watching it shatter in close up is horrifying. 


It is the effect of the movie in miniature:  


We are sitting in close proximity to Adele, watching her fall in love, suffer the downturn and spin out of the final breakup. Somehow, in spite of its flaws, there is still a cumulative power to its sheer length and deliberateness in showing us this person literally transforming into an adult. 


And that sense of verisimilitude is key to its thesis. This is a love story without a story. Or it is a familiar story - there is nothing exceptional or dramatic about it. It is just a snippet of a familiar part of life.


At the beginning, a highschool English teacher talks about the importance of predestination to the concept of true love.


Blue is the Warmest Colour has no such illusions: Adele ends the movie without Emma.


She does not even end up with Samir (Salim Kechiouche), the actor she reconnects with towards the climax of the film. It is a neat almost-subplot that I had completely forgotten about.


Midway through the movie, Adele spends all day preparing for a party that Emma is throwing for all her artist friends. Adele is isolated from the other people, including Emma. The one time she is engaged is when Samir asks her about herself, and seems genuinely interested in her.


At that point in the movie, I thought it was an interesting addition to a terrifically sad scene. But then he pops up at the end, when Adele has reconciled herself to moving on.


Going back to that opening scene discussing predestination, the ending plays on the cliche of the final romantic resolution - Samir notices Adele has left the art gallery and runs out after her… in the wrong direction.


Regardless of the filmmaker’s intentions, a fascinating aspect of the film is that its fumbling grasp of its characters' perspective is part of the text in an explicit way - there are multiple scenes of men trying to explain or express an understanding of female desire and failing. It is perhaps an irony then that the film is unable to avoid similar pitfalls.


I do not think Blue is the Warmest Colour is a movie that needs to be rescued from obscurity. I think it is still worthy of discussion.


I feel like I have written multiple conclusions to this review throughout it. So I will not hang around. 


I do not think Blue is the Warmest Colour is a masterpiece. But it is a film that continues to fascinate me as much as it frustrates me.


And I look forward to it continuing to fascinate and frustrate.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Tuesday 30 May 2023

The Theory of Flight (Paul Greengrass, 1998)

Following a series of personal problems, Richard (Kenneth Branagh) finds himself acting as a support worker for Jane (Helena Bonham Carter), a young woman with motor neurone disease.

Despite her attempts to get rid of him, Jane and Richard eventually become friends.

After showing her his prototype for a flying machine, Jane asks Richard to help her accomplish her own goal... 


Paul Greengrass's second theatrical narrative feature, The Theory of Flight bears almost no similarities with his later work.

More fantastical in concept and sentimental in execution, it is a strange signpost in his career - if it had been a success, it is possible his career might have taken a somewhat different turn.

The one aspect of the film which feels of a piece with his other work is its focus on the sexuality of its central character.

Jane wants to have sex before she dies, and in this aspect of her motivations - and Bonham Carter's performance - one can perhaps see what Greengrass locked onto. 

Scratching beneath the slightly punk-ish exterior, the film's conception of Jane does not fall too far outside the familiar stereotype disabled characters generally fall into: in spite of her own goals, she stills acts as a wise advisor and catalyst for Richard to sort out his life.

But while the character's trajectory is obvious, there is a sliver of salt amid the sweet sentimentality of the story which I could not dismiss. 

And there are a lot of things to dismiss The Theory of Flight over:

Most obviously, the score is a travesty. Awash in flooding the viewer with a sense of treacly sentimentality, it is out of a different movie.

One element of the story I barely mentioned is Richard's obsession with flight. It takes up about half the movie, and is the one thing Richard can focus on outside of his relationship with Jane. 

It feels like the kind of ridiculous subplot out of a novel, and it fits awkwardly here. And the movie takes it up another notch in the third act, when Richard arbitrarily decides to finance Jane's encounter with a gigolo (Ray Stevenson) by robbing a bank.

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is its focus on disabled people's sexual desires. But with all this other nonsense in this movie, one wishes the film were more concerned with Jane's inner life as much as Richard's.

At one point, Richard takes Jane to an organised date night for disabled people, and she flees. Initially it feels like an interesting complication - despite declaring her own desires, Jane is still unable to shake her disdain for other people with impairments - but as the movie segues into the gigolo subplot, it starts to feel like the filmmakers running away from a nuanced and meaty story.

The frustrating thing about The Theory of Flight is not an unfamiliar one when it comes to movies about the relationship between a non- and disabled person. 

Ultimately, The Theory of Flight is Richard's story, with Jane providing the catalyst for him to become a better person.

Instead of Jane's nerves with the gigolo, the key tension of the third act is Richard's ham-fisted attempt at a heist. Despite some effective crosscutting, Jane's meeting the gigolo - the key focus of the story - are minimised in favour of Richard's farcical antics.

The actors are a mixed bag - there are scenes and moments when Branagh and Bonham Carter feel like ordinary people wrestling familiar frustrations and obstacles - and then there will be a scene where Branagh clown about in a dressing gown. There is a touch of ham to Branagh, and the film is not always able to shave it off him.

Bonham Carter adds a welcome note of deadpan resignation as Jane, but her casting ultimately feels like the cherry on top of the script's embrace of regressive cliches. 

In the same year The Theory of Flight was released, Australian filmmaker Rolf De Heer collaborated with disabled writer-actress Heather Rose on the film Dance Me to My Song, which she starred in as a disabled woman with life goals and a sex drive. I would have reviewed that movie, but as of this moment I cannot find it streaming anywhere (watch this space, I guess).


On its own terms, The Theory of Flight is familiar fluff - its only idiosyncrasy is its association with Greengrass, and the juxtaposition with his other work. He neutralises and blunts some of the contrivances - the salt I mentioned earlier - but the problems with the film are more fundamental. 

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Mike Grell's Permission to Die (1991-1993)

 In this season of The James Bond Cocktail Hour podcast, we are covering the six year gap between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye, covering everything James Bond-related, from books to comics to video games, to non-Bond properties which tried to fill the gap.


On the latest episode, we are joined by Chris, the host of the Comic Tropes Youtube channel, to discuss comic book legend Mike Grell's 1991 miniseries, Permission to Die!









If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Sunday 28 May 2023

BITE-SIZED: Megaforce (Hal Needham, 1982)

When a small nation is powerless to defend itself against a neighbouring aggressor, they call upon Megaforce, an international organisation of soldiers, to save them.


"Is that Will Ferrell?"


My brother asked this when I showed him a still of Brian Bostwick as Ace Hunter.


That question sums up the experience of watching Megaforce.


Megaforce was an infamous bomb in 1982, only resurrected in the popular conscience when Trey Parker and Matt Stone made Team America - World Police.

 

Directed by Hal Needham, Megaforce is a bizarre one-off.


It beats little resemblance to anything released before it, and feels like a parody of the things which came out after it (chief amongst them being the GI Joe cartoon).


Going into it, my expectations were based on Needham’s Smokey and the Bandit - I was expecting something similar in terms of stunts and tone.


It’s too simple in story - the film feels deliberately so - but there is nothing to it. The story takes too many tangents to get going, and the final action sequence comes too late to save it.


I think it wants to be over-the-top and a bit silly, but it is missing a sense of wit.


Barry Bostwick is a good actor but the material requires a more earnest approach than he delivers.  With the self-aware charisma of Burt Reynolds, the character and the movie might have worked. 


The stunts are great, but there are not enough of them.


One interesting wrinkle is that the hero and villain are best friends and bear no animosity toward each other. As with the rest of the movie, I don’t think Bostwick and Henry Silva have the right chemistry to pull it off.


What is fascinating about the movie is how much it did predict the direction of American popular culture.


The focus on hardware and Ace Hunter’s skin-tight bodysuit would soon be outdone by the heavy firepower and ripped bodies of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. The Austrian Oak, in particular, was able to craft a body of work which rode the line between earnest thrills and tongue in cheek that Megaforce strives for. 


Frankly, the movie is kind of annoying - mostly because it feels so sure of itself. It makes the failure to execute so much more irksome. 


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Thursday 25 May 2023

Split Second (Tony Maylam and Ian Sharp, 1992)

In the dystopic future of 2008 London, hard-bitten cop Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) and his new partner Dick Durkin (Alastair Duncan) are hunting for a serial killer. 


Plagued by visions of the killer’s victims, and taunted by the killer himself, Stone is in a race against time to halt its murderous spree before it reaches its final victim…



If you follow this blog you might have noticed a long space between posts.


Frankly, I just haven’t been feeling that inspired. I have watched a lot of movies, including some that I intend to write about, but nothing was giving me a burning desire to write.


And then I watched Virus and Split Second. Sometimes it takes a movie the likes of these titles to get you back in the groove. And these are the kinds of movies that made me want to write about film in the first place.


Like VirusSplit Second is a movie cobbled together from other sources.


To its credit, the resulting confection feels like the best kind of genre bender.


Set in a flooded London - an effect of climate change - Split Second has a bleak, though tongue-in-cheek, take on the urban dystopia of earlier efforts like Blade Runner.


The flooded environments are evocative, and the sets are cluttered with interesting details that carry on the used future aesthetic that became standard in the previous decade.


This is a movie that takes pleasure in its pulpy foundations. It feels like a missing feature from the comic book 2000 AD, filled with graphic compositions filled with striking colour and depth of field.


Hauer is clearly relishing the tough guy archetype, playing into the broad strokes of the archetypal American action hero. Like his Hollywood roles, there is a twinkle to Hauer’s performance that rides the line of self-awareness without calling across as too broad.


Hauer is positively earnest compared with the rest of the cast.


While he is surrounded by British actors who are playing British characters, that context is purely geographical - the characters, their dialogue and behaviour are from a completely different country - the hardboiled, overheated world of American cop movies.


On top of the bizarre mise-in-scene, that disjunct in characterisation and performance adds to the movie’s dreamlike atmosphere.


That atmosphere might not have been entirely intentional.


Split Second’s production was somewhat chaotic.


The script was in constant flux - it started out as a thriller about a satanic serial killer in contemporary LA - and the film’s credited director, The Burning’s Tony Maylam, had to step out before the end of the tight (eight week) shooting schedule.


As a final obstacle, the concept and design of the film’s otherworldly antagonist was only decided at the last minute.


Whatever the offscreen chaos, it does not so much show onscreen as infuse it on a cellular/celluloid level. Despite its familiar bones, there is a wildness and unpredictability to Split Second that is fascinating.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a
link for tips!