a cinema thing

December is but a stones throw away, the end is nigh, and 2013 is coming to a close. And man it's been as good a year as any in our celluloid world. In my absence I've seen a litany of fantastic films which have accomplished the impossible by staying in my head more than two weeks. Unfortunately I won't be able to review these gems individually, meaning I shall have to wait until my upcoming 'Year in Review' piece to highlight them all, however I thought it best to herald my return with a treatise on my favorite film of the year, as I did for my pick of 2012 Zero Dark Thirty . The acid trip of a masterpiece, Spring Breakers. Buckle up and keep your feet on the ground for this one.

For most of you, and the greater critical community at large, Spring Breakers can be seen with equal parts derision as exaltation. Just one look at the specs and this film seemed to be inviting such a response like a lightning rod. Director Harmony Korine has rightfully earned notoriety as the provocateur of Hollywood, with his films living on in infamy for their explicit content and continuous controversy. To further muddy the waters the cast features former Disney Channel starlets Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens, and if Miley Cyrus has proved anything it is that career evolution is a tricky thing. Watching the trailer, I initially was one those who dismissed it out right. Millennials, Skrillex, beer bongs and James Franco a lá Jaws, this movie was just squaring itself up to be hated. However as the Village Voice, the New York Times and Richard Roeper have noted, don't judge a film by its hot pink g-string.

All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun. - Jean-Luc Godard

    The plot is standard crime fare, four broke girls in a dull college course are desperate to make the annual pilgrimage that is spring break, but are nonetheless broke. They include the sexually charged Brit (Ashley Benson) and Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), the vivacious Cotty (Rachel Korine) and the virginal Faith (Selena Gomez). To fast track their road to partydom, Brit, Candy and Cotty rob a local chicken shop, and the group finally bus down to what can only be described as Schoolies on acid. Beer flows not with a trickle but as a torrential flood and along with the breasts and blow all life seems to be to sucked into a hedonistic orgy of the senses. It's intense to say the least. As much as this debauchery may repel some, I found through the character of Faith kept the film emotional and reflective. Interspersed throughout this scene are her Terrence Malick-esque musings on the experiences she otherwise would not have had owing to her repressed and overtly introverted life at home.

"We met people who are just like us. People the same as us. Everyone was just trying to find themselves. It was way more than just having a good time. We see things different now. More colors, more love, more understanding."

However in one of many tonal 180s this movie takes, the girls are arrested on drug charges, only to be bailed out and accosted by an utterly transfixing character Alien as played by James Franco. The narrative changes from MTV Spring Break to Scarface, as Alien drags the girls into a neon underworld of crime which serves to both fracture the girls group and create a horrifying and immediate sense of danger.

For subtext it is clear from the start that this film is taking aim at the poisonous allure and illusion that is the modern American Dream. In a particularly arresting scene, Alien stands over the girls in his mansion, surrounded by guns upon guns, dollar bills and copious amounts of drugs. "This is my shit" he drones over and over with hypnotic gesture, "this is a dream, the American dream". For Alien life's pursuit lies in our vices and materialistic desires, being drugs, sex and money. For the group, it becomes their undoing. Faith is torn from the girls for she ultimately rejects these vices. Cotty as well, whilst initially taking part in Alien's crime sprees, comes to experience the consequences firsthand and is herself traumatized by the experience. It is not insignificant that Korine's directing style for this film comes off as a massive fever dream. Clearly taking a page from Gaspar Noé's film Enter the Void, the color palette is vibrant and eye popping, as though all of Florida is lit by black lights. We see the film as though under this impermeable haze, a drug induced fugue state. This has me come to my ultimate realization, Spring Breakers take on the American dream as exemplified by Alien is as he says,  a dream. It is no surprise that when Faith and Cotty leave that their coloring goes from vibrant neon to cold and sensible. The allure of crime, drugs, sex and money isn't a realistic pursuit, and like spring break itself one ultimately has to wake up.

Furthermore the movie paints American culture with a decidedly nihilistic brush. For these girls college is a hum drum pursuit, reminding me of Piper Laurie's character in The Hustler, who went to college for no reason more than she had nothing to do Tuesdays and Thursdays. All other priorities bow before the need to go on spring break, itself touted as an almost mythic experience, feeding into a growing detachment between the characters and the reality around them. When robbing the store Candy encourages the girls to "Pretend it's a video game, like you're in a fucking movie.", as though there will be no consequences. Pop culture also permeates the movie, perhaps to send up the excess of American culture which shamelessly pairs violence and sex with innocence and purity, ergo the many references to My Little Pony, Britney Spears and other vestiges of American youth culture.

I dare not tread to deeply into the argument as to whether this film is empowering or degrading towards women, as it is sure to galvanize all kinds of responses. However there was one underlying notion from this movie that I was really entranced by, that is the fine line tread between just portraying misogyny and actually being misogynistic. For the first part of the film, we are shown men in many situations of dominance over women, or more accurately almost all men in this part of the film are portrayed as neanderthals sexually infatuated with all other females. This is especially poignant in the opening montage, which features among many things bare breasts, girls sucking phallic like popsicles, and a line of men standing over women pouring beer onto their bodies as though the can was an extension of their manhood. Most worryingly there is a scene wherein Cotty (oblivious to the fact) is being harassed by drunken frat boy, and when the scene abruptly ends I was left with the impression that she may have been raped. For many, and myself included, this is uncomfortable as it clearly shows women in a degrading and overtly sexual manner, as with our protagonists. But for those of us that know and have been a part of this culture, I now interpret it as more of a hyperbolic send up of the spring break culture, which unfortunately is inherently misogynistic and truly has issues with rape and degradation.

However after Alien is introduced to the plot, the question of dominance is thrown on its head. For a start he is shown as exploiting sexuality to get what he wants, namely the girls. This is shown in a frightening scene between Faith and Alien, where he creepily caresses her and tries to manipulate her into staying. It was subtly a case of him trying to shame her into staying, playing on her insecurities and weaknesses to his gain. However in the most telling scene, Brit and Candy turn the tables on this would be male dominator. Brandishing loaded pistols, the girls themselves exploit his sexual obsession over them to their advantage. Pinning him to the ground, they taunt him with the notion that they had exploited their sexuality in order to manipulate him into a place of submission. And in a graphic move the girls, echoing the actions of men earlier in the film, use the guns as phallic symbols of their domination over their would be controller, and by forcing him to submit to them are able to establish themselves as controllers of the situation. It's a very tenuous interpretation I know and I'm bound to piss off a few people, but mysef response as always is...

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - dir. J.J. Abrams

Oh my god people...It's finally here!

2009 seems like it was yesterday. Global markets were in freefall, Taylor Swift told the world a love story, and Amanda Bynes was years from her first relapse. However this year Hollywood had something special brewing. No not James Cameron's over-inflated ego, this was a film straight from the genius of J.J. Abram's mystery box, the long awaited reboot of the beloved Star Trek series. Critically acclaimed and a smash at the box office, Star Trek gave a breath of fresh air to a stale franchise, and more importantly showed the success that comes from Hollywood investing in visionary talent to produce exceptional entertainment. Now after 5 LONG years in the development wilderness the wait is finally over, and J.J. Abrams has delivered a sequel in Star Trek Into Darkness. And boy was this worth the wait.

Caution: There will be spoilers. There aren't rocks big enough to hide from this movie's twists.

Now I could spend this review detailing the various aspects of the narrative and plot, however even by watching the trailer I bet you could guess how this films plays out. Set pieces, part procedural, revenge plot, explosions, end. However like its predecessor, and a class of other contemporary blockbusters from modern auteurs (such as Sam Raimi, Jon Favreau, Zach Snyder, Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan), Into Darkenss  gives the pretense of a by the books summer tent pole film whilst exploring great plot and character complexities to great effect.

Into Darkness as the title suggests follows the dark trajectory as set by it's predecessor. And whilst it's hard to top the destruction of one of the series most iconic races (I teared up), this film treads deep touching on the darkness of death and loss. It is during an Indiana Jones-esque opener that the Enterprise crew have a very close brush with death. The scene is rife with danger, Spock is in the cradle of a volcano, Kirk torn between rescuing a friend and the constraints of his training as an officer (so much hate for the Prime directive these days). Though he chooses the former, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the film for both Spock and Kirk. For our favorite half Vulcan, we call into question his very friendship with the crew, for who would so readily embrace death without thought of those it would effect? Asfor Kirk, it shows just the reckless abandon he would pursue for his friends, even if it conflicts with his duties and principles. Seeing this opening scene just opened a huge array of possibilities for the film to pursue, and it was the introduction of the best new character in the franchise that this film managed to do itself justice.

In comes Benedict Cumberbatch, as a man fans of the franchise will all know and love. And this is where J.J. Abrams treads the fine line of remake vs. rework of Wrath of Khan. Yes Khan Noonien Signh, one of cinema's most iconic villains is introduced to the new adventures of the Enterprise, and it is a reworking that I am still reeling from. Following a dramatic bombing in London and an all out assault on Starfleet (in which a beloved character is tragically lost) the prologue's ruminations on loss by the crew lead to a thirst for vengeance. Khan, as in the original, provides the perfect icon to which we despise, and Cumberbatch is phenomenal in presenting the character as this genetic superman is to be. However he does this in such a cold and calculating fashion that not is he just magnetic on screen, but thematically creates the perfect foil to Pine's Kirk and better yet his true nemesis in this film in Spock. Whilst Shatner and Montalbán battled it out in the Mutara Nebula, the best twist Into Darkness pulled was reversing one of cinema's greatest rivalries and sacrifice between the two heroes. This avoided a by the books rehash of Wrath of Khan, and I think created a far more believable stand off and emotional climax (and let's just say I thank TO GOD that this film eliminated the need for a Search for Kirk...). It was beautiful, I nearly cried, and we once again come out knowing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or of the one. *CUE TEARS*

As for the peripheral aspects of the film? Mixed bag unfortunately. I feel like the filmmakers decided to fully embrace a semblance of darkness themselves, especially when it came to the sets and one casting choice in particular. Whilst the first film was primarily shot in front of a green screen, and a brief visit to Vasquez Rocks (awesome), this film chose for an unusual combination of location, sound stage and green screen shots. Starfleet is quite obviously the Getty Museum (not a bad choice, just awkward having been there and recognizing the locations). The Klingon homeworld of Cronos is this laughably hammy sound stage that looks  like a paintball field. And worst of all some of the engineering sections of the Enterprise just look crappy compared to the sleekness of the other sets. If you're film is budgeted at over $150 million, make it look so, especially given that the CGI is unparalleled in its sleek presentation. My other major gripe was the casting of Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus. Not only was she just the most annoying character imaginable, but her performance was criticized (rightfully so) as being sexually exploitative. See below:

WHY WAS THIS NECESSARY?!

This was literally one of the only instances of skimpyness in the film, and just came across as tacky and unwarranted. On the whole, it just goes to show that writers should not revive characters from Wrath of Khan for the sake of continuity or maintaining a link. Just awful.

The mind has become hot property in cinema these days. Following the smash success of Inception and it's dream within a dreams shtick, movies have been foraying deeper into the mind with hopes to: A) challenge audiences with the complexity of its unconventional narrative and structure; and B) Take your money. With Trance, Danny Boyle has opted to fail at both of these, and thrown in a sub par heist movie to boot. However as with any film that seeks to whack you smack in the head, at least there is a some enjoyment to be found once the initial headache has passed.

The film beings with a recognizably Boyle-esque opening, heavily laden exposition presented with style and flair. Fine art auctioneer Simon (James McAvoy, in a manner reminiscent of Trainspotting, introduces us to his life and work at an auction house. Almost immediately this introduction is interrupted by a group of art thieves led by Franck (Vincent Cassel) intent to steal a priceless artwork, and after a series of dizzying cross cuts, swooping camera transitions and thumping soundtrack, Simon winds up with a serious blow to the head and the painting in question gone. For Franck and the thieves it is clear Simon knows where the painting is, but due to the head trauma he sustained (whose smart idea was this anyway?) he cannot remember. This is where the heist film ends, and the mind melting Inception plot begins. But pray what does Trance do different? Instead of dreams within dreams, we have hypnosis, as the team "randomly" selects professional hypnotist Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) to dig out the whereabouts of the painting from poor Simon's subconscious.

Unfortunately this is where the film lost me, as Danny Boyle just abuses the limit that the audience can suspend its belief whilst leaving plot holes the size of houses and a litany of unanswered questions that left me frustrated. Trance invariably suffers from the current trend of directors in this post-Christopher Nolan/Inception/The Dark Knight-world, in which films emphasize flair and style in order to give the appearance of depth and complexity. Nonetheless this still belies a clear lack of substance to back up the flair. The key twists you can guess from miles away. This includes the key background behind *SPOILERS* Simon and Elizabeth's prior relationship, I mean the films initially presents Elizabeth as an out of the blue side character, yet from the very first interaction she has with Simon (and her emotional breakdown after this meeting) it is clear there was something bigger and darker there. The rest of the movie's twists and turns just fall together like missmatching puzzle pieces. I could not help but think that facts were deliberately withheld from the audience (which for this sub-genre is self-defeating and is my biggest pet peeve), but this conflicts with lazily letting other twists be left out in the open to be easily deciphered.

The many issues I took with the plot just made me recall Star Wards for some reason. My anger, led to hate, hate led to suffering, which is a slippery slope to the dark side of film reviewing. However if you put the aggravating plot aside, lock it in a box and throw it into a river if you will, there are many things that I highly enjoyed!

First, as with any film from Danny Boyle, this film looks beautiful. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle really deserves plaudits for his work, as does much of the production side of Trance. The editing, though dizzy, is perfect for a head trip. The sets are as ersatz as the funhouse from The Man with the Golden Gun meets Tron: Legacy (a stretch I know but bear with me!). And the colors, OH THE COLORS! I love any film which so liberally splashes primary colors such as red and blue about, though my head was reeling my eyes were certainly entranced! Furthermore I cannot in good conscious neglect to mention Rosario Dawson's performance. She is a presence to be reckoned with in this film! Every scene I was just drawn to her, both for subtle power she brought to her character (the most interesting) and her simply stunning beauty. A key scene sees her appear in full front nudity, but rather than vulgarity as per ever nude scenes in film, here she glows like picturesque beauty from the paintings to which this film revolves around. Simply beautiful. To top off the fantastic production, Boyle has brought in Rick Smith (from Underworld fame) to give us a pulsating, lively and table-smacking awesome soundtrack! As Daft Punk, The Chemical Brothers and Chromatics have shown, films should continue utilizing electronic artists for their soundtracks.

Hugo (2011) - So it begins again! After a month of WorldMUN madness I am back into the enjoyable and time consuming art that is cinema. And what better film to welcome me back than Martin Scorsese's opus Hugo. Some awards seasons see two similarly themed (or symbolically opposed) films enter the ring to battle out for Oscar glory. 2007 saw Texan themed heavyweights There Will Be Blood and  No Country for Old Men. 2010 was notable (for some of us at least) of the Academy awarding what to me represented the safe bet traditional period film The King's Speech rather than the bold and forward thinking The Social Network. However last year the 84th Academy Awards was auspicious for the face off between two film's about films, The Artist and Hugo, for which Hugo is sure to inspire generations to come.

Anna Karenina (2012) - Love, it is the feeling which no words can define, and no definition can capture its passion and beauty. Leo Tolstoy created a masterpiece with Anna Karenina, exploring the very core of love in an entrancing tale set against imperial Russia. Adapted over 20 times on the silver screen, 2012 saw director Joe Wright and Keira Knightley create a daring vision fit for the modern screen, though is bittersweet in its success.

Anna Karenina posits love as multi dimensional, as shown through the relationships in the film. The most notable of these being of course, that which embroils Anna. Keira Knightley brings to the stage her full talents as an actress, displaying all to which I held her character Anna to. Her performance is transcendent, showing a tragic beauty, passionate lover and empathetic soul that combine in a riveting display. Her character Anna forms the middle of a scandalous triangle. Wife to Alexei Karenin, a respected minister, and mistress to Count Vronsky, a dashing cavalry officer. Alexei is saintly in demeanor a doting husband and devoted father to her child. However their love is artificial, for as Anna mention's 'I was eighteen when I got married, but it was not love.' This construct comes to a halt upon meeting Vronsky, and this is where my attachment to Karenina's character diverges.

This is not love she experiences, but lust. From the brilliantly scripted ballroom dance, to each moment they share onwards, it is an attraction which reeks of sexuality. It is only when they are in a physical bond that Anna displays any true joy in their relationship. In fact much of the rest of their coupling is mired with Anna's incessant jealousy and selfishness towards Vronsky. This I believe to be validated through the film's portrayal of the relationship between Konstantin Levin and Kitty. Kitty begins much like Anna, courting Vronsky not out of love but again a lustful desire. However it is the sympathetic portrayal of Levin that wins her over, as he professes an altruistic love for her that triumphs over physical yearning. Anna throws away this true love that her husband genuinely provides, and subsequently all the things important to her, including the son to which she is closest of all. 

All the world's a stage, and we but players on it. That is the guiding vision for this film, with the majority of the film set within a theater, it's wings and backstage. The choice is an apt one, not only in service of a stylistically distinct film, but also thematically. For in 19th Century Russian aristocracy, we cannot act with impunity and discretion, a fact which comes to plague the titular character Anna. She carries out her scandalous affair that the audience is always there, watching. This in turn becomes suffocating, with the tight confines, though opulent, only serving to further emphasize the constraints of Russian society. However much like my eventual disdain for the character Anna, I came to see this staging as a poisoned chalice to the viewer. Whilst serving the plot nicely, functionally I saw this singular set as confusing. This was especially apparent in the many scene transitions, and there are plenty, which came across as jarring to the point I would struggle to know what exactly was happening.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) - After two amicable yet spirited debates over this film, I have decided to finally throw my hat into the ring and write my opinion on this film. I write this fully acknowledging the controversy surrounding it, to which I will try and address some of the finer arguments, and I hope to show why this is my pick for best film of 2012. 

We open to a black screen, the words September 11th, 2001 sprawled in front of us. We need not need further explanation, for this date has been burned into the minds and hearts of much of the world today. We hear screams, cries for help, crying. 11 years on the vividness of that day lives on as but a distant memory, yet the emotion and heartache still rings true. And now the film begins, not with a bang but a cry, as we the audience are subjected to a front row viewing to the darker side of Bush era foreign policy, torture. The film is gritty, real, and unrelenting in its gratuitous display of waterboarding and psychological humiliation. With the ever present memory of 9/11 lingering in our psyche, the cries and screams that ring in our minds, is this the price we must pay to get justice? Or revenge?  

For the subsequent 2 hours we follow the journey of CIA officer Maya as she tracks down the man whom the world placed as the face and embodiment of the evil that perpetrated the acts of terror in New York, London, Madrid and countless other cities. And on this journey we too bear witness to the evolution of her character, from the trembling greenhorn hiding behind a mask to a truly fearsome individual. Jessica Chastain bears the anger and blood lust of a nation as she doggedly pursues Osama bin laden, and comes to symbolize the transformation that my country the United States took during its embroilment in the war on terror. From leading proponent of liberty and human rights (just bear with me on this point) to a perpetrator of the most heinous of abuses. Just who is the evil here? Is our blind quest for revenge worth the principles we sacrifice on the way?

Maya is consumed with this singular goal to catch Osama bin Laden. We never see his face, yet his presence is constant. Much like in reality, he becomes more than a man and more of an idea. bin Laden becomes Moby Dick to Maya's Ahab, a prize to which one will sacrifice the body and soul in grasping, dragging her principles down to that of the very enemy she fights. In the most intimate moment at the conclusion of the film, Maya sits alone on a cargo plane back to DC. She weeps, having experienced countless setbacks, pressure and loss, and herself committed many amoral acts, with that ever burning question, was it all worth it?

The film climaxes in what I believe to be one of the most well directed sequences in film history. Never since No Country For Old Men has a film kept me rapt in such anticipation and tension. We are thrust directly to the front lines of the compound raid, from insertion to that fateful shot, and we feel as though we were there. Bigelow employs gritty cinema vérité to emphasize this realism, with a careful pacing and minute precision that we hinge on every action on screen. Though we know the outcome, we are held in an involuntary suspension of belief that has us hanging on to every fateful moment.

Also SPOILER ALERT: bin Laden dies. Got it? Great we can continue.

Now I would be remiss if I did not address the primary controversy that has dogged this film, being the gratuitous display of torture as shown at the beginning of the film. This has two dimensions, the first being the factual basis for this scene, the second being to what purpose is it shown.

Firstly, and I put on my foreign policy cap here, this film is not based upon fact, and I say this in criticism of the director Kathryn Bigelow whom I greatly admire. The director touted this film as 'journalistic', with reference to scenes showing the use of enhanced interrogation methods in leading directly to bin Laden. This has been refuted not only by members of Congress but by the intelligence community and defence department. History tells us torture played a role, but not a key role, which is correctly shown in the film as I explain later. However at the end of the day this is a film, not a documentary. For the purpose of narrative and ultimately entertainment, film makers will often play fast and loose with the facts, with many Best Picture nominees this year such as Argo and Lincoln being guilty of the same charge. So whilst it should not have been marketed in the way it has been, it should not be faulted for being a fictional film, which is what it is at the end of the day, despite being based in a historical setting. 

The second criticism I find myself in defence of the film, that being the accusation that ZDT is pro torture. I highly disagree with this notion! The torture scene in question, and the information resulting from it, is supposedly posited to be the direct link to the final capture and slaying of bin Laden. This is just not the case at all. The scene itself shows the interrogators seeking information from al-Qaeda middle-man 'Ammar' in order to prevent an impending terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Despite their violent efforts, the subject proves uncooperative and we are shown the aforementioned attack being carried out in brutal detail. The torture ultimately proves futile and counter-productive, which is carried in the film's script which ends the scene with "Once again, he's learned nothing." Here we see torture as a failed tactic, to which Maya then suggests a different approach, tricking the subject. This yields results and the hunt continues. This objective fact leads to my number one frustration with the criticism levied towards the film, which I find ultimately unfair. Torture, though amoral, was a widely used tactic during the Bush administration, and the film is accurate in portraying that fact. To criticize the film being pro torture I call lazy and irrespective of the facts. In other words, calling ZDT pro torture is the equivalent to calling A Clockwork Orange pro violence, in that you're missing the point completely.

In further defence of this film, and at the sake of taking a slightly political tone, I also make note of what I see as an immense double standard in entertainment with regards to torture. Through the years torture has been employed as a popular narrative device in fiction, from films to television. Notable films including Man On Fire, James Bond on several occasions, the Bourne Series and Syriana have featured its use. And several television shows including 24 and most pointedly Homeland have employed torture as a central plot device. These narratives all show torture in what I can only describe as a positive light, an essential tool for the hero to catch the baddie and save the day. If we applied this same attitude to torture into policy, the results would be all but reprehensible. ZDT is the first film in a long while to show torture for what it is, a gratuitous, gruesome and immoral act, with not a scratch of heroism attached. So either society needs to seriously re-evaluate what it denotes torture, or take it for what it is, which is exactly what ZDT delivers. Serious buyers remorse.