RSS

Weekend

A couple of months ago, I complained about the pervasiveness of G.V.S. — Gay Victimization Syndrome — in contemporary gay movies. Such films remain stuck in the past, and refuse to take a chance on the realities of the present. Viewers can find the antidote in a remarkable 2011 film called “Weekend.”

The scope is limited to two men, spending two days together in their working-class neighborhood in Nottingham. Andrew Haigh, who wrote, directed and edited “Weekend,” works within that narrow frame to create one of the most honest romances ever put to film. It begins with Russell (Tom Cullen), a handsome, bearded young man, stopping by his best friend’s party. Haigh, working with the cinematographer Urszula Pontikow, wisely keeps his camera on Russell whenever he isn’t talking. We can tell, just by the way he behaves and looks on at his fellow partygoers, that something isn’t right, that something is missing in his life.

What better way to cure this lack than by going to a gay club? The night is a disjointed blur, anchored only by Russell’s sideways glances at another handsome, bearded man. Suddenly, it is the morning after, and Russell finds himself being interviewed on tape about their post-coitus experience by the aforementioned man, whose name turns out to be Glen (Chris New). Glen, who is staging the makeshift interview for a future art exhibition, is as aggressive and outspoken as Russell is reticent. “Why are you afraid to talk about sex?” he asks a bewildered Russell.

What began as a one-night stand blossoms into something deeper, and Cullen and New have the chemistry to pull the relationship off. Their characters are obviously attracted to one other, but they also exhibit a slight and understandable hesitancy arising from the sudden nature of their romance. Haigh continues to focus on those telling non-verbal moments, from the slightest gesture to the slightest downturn of the eyes. To enumerate all the stages in which their relationship develops in this review would not be fair; they must be seen to be believed. (The film can be streamed on Netflix.)

“Weekend” is most successful at showing how a relationship can bring the best and the worst out of people. For every cute smile that Russell and Glen give each other, there is a hidden insecurity they must surmount. The two men ride the train together, after a night out with Glen’s friends. Russell comments on how it is nice to hang out with gay people, but Glen brushes it off. “You realize they’re just as much idiots as the rest of us,” he says with a knowing smile. “Weekend” eschews homophobic characters and tired coming-out stories for a more encompassing narrative that any couple, gay or straight, can relate to. It isn’t society, but the men themselves who are their own greatest enemy and asset.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 29, 2011 in Gay, Movies, Reviews

 

Tags: , , ,

War Horse

“War Horse” can be insufferable. Based on the eponymous children’s book by Michael Morpurgo, Steven Spielberg’s film is a mess of schmaltzy, melodramatic tropes. John Williams’s lush orchestration yanks at the viewer’s heartstrings. And whenever the film moves to the English countryside, the brilliant cinematographer Janusz Kaminski — a frequent Spielberg collaborator — defaults to a “Gone With the Wind” look: imagine silhouetted figures placed against an achingly gorgeous blood-red sunset.

“War Horse” is extremely earnest about its schmaltziness, and about the naiveté of the horse and the boy at the heart of its story. It is this very earnestness that makes the film memorable, even if it is a failure. It opens with Albert Narracott (played by newcomer Jeremy Irvine) crouching behind a fence and fixing his gleaming eyes on the sight of the future War Horse being born on a field. The boy’s titillating fixation is mildly disconcerting, although this is as far as the film hews to the birds and the bees. From that moment on, their bond is sealed.

As their relationship deepens over the next 45 minutes, it is difficult, while sitting through each of those minutes, to understand what Spielberg was going for. The tone is so saccharine, the colors of the English countryside so saturated, that at first, “War Horse” seems to be parodying the typical boy-and-[insert animal] story. But Spielberg remains quite serious about sticking with this sickeningly beautiful pre-war setting. Just when the viewer begins to lose all hope, Europe erupts in war, and the horse is thankfully sold by the boy’s father to the British Army.

This is where things get interesting. No one can match Spielberg when it comes to filming battle scenes, and it was not until watching this film that I came to fully understand how traumatic World War One was. It wasn’t just a futile bloodbath that destroyed a generation of Europeans; it was the destruction of a previous way of life.

The War Horse represents nature and the previous way of life; the tanks, machine guns and tear gas represent total annihilation by mechanized warfare. These are shamelessly obvious metaphors that Spielberg, to his credit, does not shy away from. The two most memorable scenes in “War Horse” concern this traumatic struggle between the past and future.

In the film’s first battle, a line of British calvary charge at a German camp and seem to be winning — until they reach a line of hidden machine gun encampments. A clever wide shot shows dozens of horses, sans their riders, leaping over the steaming, still-firing machine guns. It strikes me as the one truly brilliant Spielberg moment in the film, an ingenious depiction of the charge’s futility that doesn’t exploit its violent failure.

Spielberg is less convincing and less subtle when he attempts to find a common, primordial bond that unites soldiers from warring countries. Take the initially stunning sequence in which the War Horse breaks free and thunders through No Man’s Land, forging a path through the barricades and barbed wire. When a roll of wire finally downs him, a sympathetic English soldier and a sympathetic German soldier hesitantly step out of their respective trenches and reach the horse, armed with wire clippers. “You speak good English,” notes the English soldier. The German soldier gently corrects him: “I speak English well.”

Sadly, the moment is somewhat neutered by the fact that all of the characters, whether English, German or French, have been speaking English throughout the film’s entirety. This is a bizarre oversight, considering how effectively Spielberg used the discrepancy of language in “Saving Private Ryan.”

In any case, no matter how much those two soldiers talk, there is no image quite as powerful or telling as a horse charging a line of barbed wire or machine guns. Hidden beneath this melodrama of a naive boy and his horse is the haunting story of a modernizing world undergoing a violent adjustment period. It is true that viewers need a sense of that seemingly perfect pre-war environment, to contrast with the brutal battles they witness later on. But with an antebellum society as saccharine and corny as “War Horse”’s, it is impossible to take that underlying, larger struggle as seriously as it deserves to be.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 27, 2011 in Movies, Reviews

 

Tags: , ,

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

I need to be up-front: I have not seen the first three “Mission: Impossible” films. The fourth and latest entry in the franchise did not catch my interest — until I noticed the director attached to the project. Brad Bird has directed three brilliant animated feature films: “The Iron Giant,” “The Incredibles,” and “Ratatouille.” “The Incredibles” remains Pixar’s best film, in large part because its fantastical, high-energy scenes are grounded by the mundane realities of modern life. If there is anybody who could pull off thrilling action that seamlessly develops character, it is Brad Bird. The only thing is, “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” is Mr. Bird’s first attempt at a live-action film. Was he able to pull it off?

There is a lot to admire in “Ghost Protocol.” Take the early scene in which we are first introduced to IMF agent Ethan Hunt, played by an excellent and surprisingly youthful-looking Tom Cruise. It builds slowly, with Hunt stuck in a Russian prison cell, casually tossing stones away from him. A cell down the hall mysteriously opens up. Then another, and more still, until Hunt is finally released, thanks to an omniscient IMF tech expert named Benji (Simon Pegg, providing reliable support as the dork with an acerbic wit). The camera impressively follows Hunt as he rushes through the prison, dispatches riot police, switches direction, and eventually, inevitably, escapes.

So, Mr. Bird is in top form. He continues to make shooting action look easy. Using clean compositions and seamless edits, we gain a clear sense of the geography without losing any of the fights’ momentum — much easier said than done.

But “Ghost Protocol” falls apart when it comes to its story, whose script Mr. Bird did not write. It has something to do with a Russian genius/madman who wants to remake society by detonating a stolen nuclear device. It is a completely forgettable and tired plot, where, since everything is at stake, nothing is really at stake.

“Ghost Protocol” will likely and deservedly be best known for the astounding sequence in which Tom Cruise scales the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. Cruise, and a heavy IMAX camera, are actually accomplishing the stunt thousands of feet above the city. In IMAX projection, whenever the camera looks down at the desert floor, it elicits a sickening sense of vertigo that is nothing short of exhilarating.

But I do not remember why the IMF agents had to go to Dubai in the first place — or some palace in Mumbai. And since Hunt is already a super-agent, his character does not have much room for growth. He scales the Burj Khalifa because he has to; it is merely a part of his job. Mr. Bird does as much as he can to raise the stakes within these self-contained sequences — one of Hunt’s magnetic gloves malfunctions — but the vacuum in the overarching narrative lessens their impact.

“Ghost Protocol” leaves its viewers in an odd position. It is unashamedly enjoyable, and refreshingly, the filmmakers do not shy away from how comical and ridiculous the “Mission: Impossible” concept is. If the IMF agents are disavowed by the U.S. government, how do they have access to beautiful suits? Or showers? Or a gorgeous concept BMW sedan that Tom Cruise gets to drive? (Kudos to BMW for creating the most effective product placement in a film, ever.)

But I wonder how the film would have been if Ethan Hunt had to live off the land and think outside the box, without the aid of 22nd-century technology. Brad Bird established his reputation on action scenes that developed character. Here, the action scenes are fantastic, but lose their impact because of the story’s utter flimsiness. I am glad that “Ghost Protocol” is as good as it is, but I suspect viewers will leave the theater with the nagging feeling that it could have been much more than a well-executed action film.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 17, 2011 in Movies, Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , ,