Miyazaki Spirited Away to Retirement

I was going to use today, one day before the DVD release of Star Trek: Into Darkness, to discuss my opinion of the film which has evolved somewhat since its release. However this story takes prescedent as it will easily have the most significant impact on film as a whole. The story in question? Today, September 1st 2013, it was announced that Hayao Miyazaki, co-founder of the seminal Studio Ghibli and the director of some the most popular and endearing children's films of the last decade is to retire.

The news which came from Studio Ghibli head Koji Hoshino was met with stunned silence when revealed at the Venice Film Festival. The festival is to screen Miyazaki's eleventh, and now I guess final, film The Wind Rises. It's fitting then that the film neatly encapsulates the two subjects which most fuel  Miyazaki's passion and which have been woven throughout his work, for better or for worse. His love for flight and aviation and his hatred of war. 

The Wind Rises is about Jiro a young Japanese boy who dreams of flight and goes on to be a flight designer during World War Two. Refreshingly for a film about realising ones dreams the central conflict comes from losing out to simple competition not from external influences that hinder the path to being the best. And like Oppenheimer, like even Orville Wright himself, Jiro lives a life of regret at the suffering his works brought.

As mentioned the theme of war has permeated many of Miyazaki's films at Studio Ghibli. Ashitaka's quest against the weapons manufacturer Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke to Porco Rosso's past as a fighter pilot. Sometimes I feel this is a detriment to his work, like in Howl's Moving Castle where the war serves as little more than set dressing. Presented without cause or distinction of the two sides crippling our ability to empathise with Howl for doing what he can to protect the innocent. Though this is far from my sole problem with the film.

Whether Miyzaki's legacy will be to encourage universal pacifism or the preservation of the natural world remains to be seen. What is indisputable is that his contribution to Japanese Animation has not only produced some of its most compelling works but burst it onto mainstream western culture. Walt Disney releasing Princess Mononoke paved the way for future Ghibli films now released and arthouse cinema's and children's screenings across the west. That last point I think is one component of Ghibli's success, for all the depth added by theme and mythology they still work remarkably well as children's film.

My Neighbour Totoro is, for me, the best example of this. Led by two, incredibly sympathetic leads and set across the beauty of Akita Prefecture serving as the backdrop. The story is almost nonexistent as two young sisters try to come to terms with their mother suffering a severe sickness, finding respite in Totoro, the playful spirit of the forest. It's the profound sadness that makes the joy in their adventures with Totoro so palpable and the simple but distinct visual design of the spirit is what has made him a cult icon.

If I'm being honest though my favourite is and now always will be Laputa: Castle in the Sky. What can I say, I'm a sucker for adventure and similar to Miyazaki I've always has a fascination with airships. Airplanes may be the statistically safest way to fly but that doesn't stop your heart racing on takeoff. And that's what Laputa does, it whisks you away at high velocity then settles to let you get comfortable before taking its turns. It's a unique, funny and thrilling adventure that I can watch time and time again.

Studio Ghibli will not end with Miyazaki. That has never been a prospect. Recent addition to the team Hiromasa Yonebayashi debuted with The Secret World of Arietty which neatly embodies everything great about a Studio Ghibli film. Isao Takahata, who directed the heartbreaking Grave of the Fireflies continues to work with the studio. With his 5th Ghibli film The Story of Princess Kaguya currently in production. And of course there is Miyazaki's son Goro. Yes, his freshman outing Tales of Earthsea was met with a mixed critical reception, harshly earning his the Japanese equivalent of the Razzies. But From Up On Poppy Hill has fared much better with its plot closer to Ghibli films outside the fantasy genre like Only Yesterday.

Yes Ghibli will continue without Hayao Miyazaki's contribution but there is a sense that film will be poorer for it. He opened the west up to not only Japanese animation, which already had a dedicated albeit fringe following, but to worlds of splendor and hope. For the last year I have considered becoming an English language teacher in Japan. It is a desire brought about by the beauty the Ghibli films have shown me. Because of Miyazaki I want to walk up the Tama hills and along the safflower fields of Yamagata. And if I do I'll keep an eye out for Totoro.
    

High Rise Expectations of Ben Wheatley’s New Film

Ben Wheatley is to adapt a work by JG Ballard? This can only end disastrously. I mean who the hell is this Wheatley guy anyway? Unless he’s somehow managed to direct some of the most unique and subversive works of British cinema in the last deca-oh wait he totally has. Yes, perhaps the most exciting filmmaker in the country is getting his chance to bust onto the mainstream with an adaptation of new wave science fiction novel High Rise.

                For full disclosure I haven’t read the novel myself or indeed any of Ballard’s work. As a sci-fi author he’s certainly been on my radar but I’ve never got round to checking out anything he’s written and presently I’m still working through my long-ass reading list. If I feel an itch for some Hard SF I’ll get started on the Culture Series out of respect for its recently deceased author. Plus I’ve always got plenty of Dick to fall back on.

                One thing I do know is that Ballard is a heavily respected figure in the genre. Even if he’s not as prominent as the likes of Phillip K. Dick he’s certainly contributed as much to cyberpunk and futuristic dystopia. This is where we find ourselves in High Rise, set in a luxury high-rise apartment building where affluence gives rise to all manner of depravity. It’s Lord of the Flies starring Gideon Osborne’s Family and absolutely perfect material for Wheatley.

                The thing about Ben Wheatley, the thing that has made his most recent work the hits that they have been, has been his ability to manage shifts in tone. Kill List for example is one part domestic drama, one part hitman thriller and one part The Wicker Man. And while I feel the third act is too desultory to be effective the transition from kitchen sink to claw hammer execution is seamless. Leading man Jay (played by Utopia’s brilliant Neil Maskell) seethes with impotent aggression in every scene leaving no doubt that the discontent family man could be a hardened hitman.

                Similarly Sightseers feels like a jovial character comedy, merely disrupted by the odd murder. True this owes much to the writing and acting talents of Alice Lowe and Steve Oram. However it’s Wheatley’s direction that gives many of the deaths a slapstick feel punctuated by a complete drop in tone. It’s a sign of the man’s understanding of comic time and ability to convey the effect on screen. All of this results in Sightseers being one of the funniest films of last year and nowhere near as jarring as the premise would suggest.

                The prospect of Wheatley mixing the soft tones of an elegant gathering with the brutality and blood that represents how low humans can sink has a lot of promise. Like this year’s The Purge  it has the chance to say something about the isolationist attitude of some of the wealthy, hopefully without becoming preachy. It also represents the potential for a turning point in Wheatley’s career. A film by Ben Wheatley with the marketability of ‘based on a book by JG Ballard’ could see a much wider release than his previous films. A big hit could propel Wheatley into the mainstream with the money and creative freedom to achieve a larger passion project.

                This is all speculation of course. The reason Wheatley’s work exists of the fringes, beloved mostly by cinephiles, is because that’s the audience they play best to. And like Ken Loach, there’s no indication that the director of A Field in England would even want to enter the mainstream. That might not even be the best place for High Rise given that previous adaptations of Ballards work have either been the infamous, under-the-radar psychosexual thriller Crash or the comparatively conventional Empire of the Sun.  Either way with the substantial pedigree of Ballard and Wheatley combined; High Rise might be one of the most interesting British films for a long time.  

Not So Beautiful Creatures

 Ok, let’s get this out of the way. Yes, I know Beautiful Creatures came out months ago and nobody gave a shit about it then. The reason this is so badly delayed is because this review was originally intended as a video review but that got stalled due to demands on time and eventually my laptop getting bricked. Now everyone who was in a position to review the film has reviewed it and so doing a video seems pointless. Thankfully most critics have been reviewing Beautiful Creatures in a favourable light in contrast to my own views. So if say, you were made curious on the premise alone and wanted to check it out consider me present to direct you elsewhere. Seriously if you want some witch-related stuff to chew on there’s Tiffany Aching, Roald Dahl’s The Witches, hell even The Craft is a better bet.

In fact on the subject of Witches it’s notable that over the last year the TV industry has been working to make Witches the new supernatural thing with The Secret Circle and over here Switch and while none of them have amounted to more than okay, the move overall makes sense. Witches are just about the best way of capitalising on the success of Hollywood’s various young adult franchises while breaking away from said franchises undertones of romanticised subjugation. It empowers the women as both the narrative driving force and the supernatural creatures in question. And on the surface Beautiful Creatures seems to want to accomplish this.

The plot is something of a gender-inverted Twilight. It revolves around Ethan Wate a high-schooler in the rural county of Gaitlin who falls for new girl Lena Duchannes. Lena however is a Caster, a race gifted with various supernatural powers, so-called because this is mainstream and the word witch is just goofy. The problem with Casters is that on their sixteenth birthday their powers are claimed by the quirky outfitted forces of light or the Wilson’s disease afflicted forces of darkness. And things don’t exactly look light for Lena though with Gaitlin’s community turning against her as part of a plot orchestrated by Dark Caster Seraphine as well as a family curse involving Ethan’s own ancestry.

The reason I see this as attempting a more progressive portrayal of women is because of the more decisive role Lena plays. Throughout the story it’s reinforced to her that she has no choice in the matter, she’ll be claimed by either side whether she wants to or not and more likely dark owing to circumstances. Yet through it all Lena remains determined that there is some loophole, some workaround that will allow her to decide her own fate. And when said loophole presents itself it comes at a severe cost to her relationship with Ethan which she reluctantly accepts.  

   

Honestly I’d be all for this if it wasn’t for one minor detail that the film establishes about Caster Mythology which is that male Casters can choose to go light or dark while women can’t. This is a deviation from the book-incidentally yes I read the fucking book get over it-that I’m tempted to say was changed because it hints at plot points explored in the later novels and this film is really hesitant to hint at making sequels. But I really think it undermines the idea of Beautiful Creatures being the feminist counter-point to Twilight, that plus y’know it just not being very good.

Now I don’t want this to become adaptation 101 but one of the things I liked about the book was that the relationship between Ethan and Lena actually bothered to pace itself. Ethan is infatuated with her from the start ,as is par for the course, but his attraction is grounded in his characterisation.  Not only is Lena set apart from the citizens of Gaitlin but also she reminds him of how much he fits in with the community he longs to escape from.

Crucially it’s only a third of the way into the book before they become mutually romantic with time spent up to that point getting to know each other, gradually revealing Lena’s powers and exploring Caster mythos. This provides a way of drip-feeding exposition while at the same time providing context for Lena and Ethan spending time together which makes their eventual hookup more credible.

By contrast the film completely rushes things, going from antagonistic bitching to making out in a matter of minutes.  As a result there just seems something artificial about the whole thing, it proceeds far too quickly to feel genuine. In fact the pacing as a whole is a mess, scenes from the book are copied word for word and feel as limp and lifeless as reciting lines is. But then entirely new scenes are contrived simply to infodump exposition, like they know the central love story has no meat to it and are spacing out the Caster mythology just to fill out screen time.

Using an existing work is a tricky business where sometimes it’s best to stay faithful and other times it’s best to use the source as a jumping off point for an original story. But Beautiful Creatures combines the worst of both worlds, throwing aside interesting plot points with one hand and forcing us through verbatim sequences with the other.

Another problem is the narrative voice of Ethan, not the most original frustrated young American but at least when he was narrating the book I could imagine his southern drawl was tolerable to listen to. Alden Ehrenreich’s accent is just so grating and he has to detail everything when we should be able to just take in the visuals. What’s worse is that it’s needless, Ethan isn’t sole narrative perspective of the film and without spoiling anything he’s completely removed from the final act.

On top of that it’s really hard to follow all the different threads the story hints at, is Ethan’s mom an important character or not, can Lena choose her fate or can’t she, and why do we introduce all these different Casters but never establish who they are or what powers they have. I mean one of them is an illusionist which turns out to be a big deal in the final act but they never mention his powers or show him using them until that moment. Sure Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson and Emmy Rossum are all fun as the older Casters but then why isn’t the rest of the film?

I wish I could say that the visual style or fantastical sets made up for all these narrative failing but what’s most shocking about Beautiful Creatures is just how flat and dull it is. Ravenwood manor looks like Tim Burton phoning it in and they have to repaint it every scene to show its supernatural nature on the cheap. The cinematography is so distant you feel like you’re watching every scene through a laboratory window. And the epic confrontation in the finale is shot/reverse shot like Lena and Seraphine are having a fucking dinner date.

It’s sad that Beautiful Creature fails as blisteringly as it does because I don’t want to hate, I want there to be some new supernatural franchise that really shakes up the genre or at least gives a decent role for women. But Beautiful Creatures is not that franchise, it’s not even good enough to be the placeholder till that franchise gets here.

Trance: Like most therapy sessions sterile, wayward and discourages repeat visits

Danny Boyle’s a weird one, on par with Ken Loach and Shane Meadows as a truly notable British auteur. Like most directors I admire his distinctiveness is very conducive to narrative flow with rapid fire editing and chameleonic musical accompaniment that always sets you in the often schizophrenic mindset of his characters. The man’s name alone can get me into the cinema and the thought of him doing a contemporary film noir as a means of blowing off steam during the Olympic ceremony was an exciting prospect.

But alas everyone has their limits and Boyle’s, in my opinion, is adapting a relatively thin crime narrative into a feature length thriller. A similar feat was managed in 127 Hours by painstakingly detailing the tribulations of its trapped protagonist while fleshing out his character through flashbacks and hallunicinations. Trance however doesn’t have time for that, it’s got a mystery to solve, complications to provoke and a forgettable supporting cast to mess around with. Not to mention the titillating love triangle the film weaves between its protagonist Simon (James McAvoy) an art auctioneer who steals a painting for East End mob boss Franck (Vincent Cassel) only to lose it after a bonk to the noggin and attempts to divine its location with the help of sultry hypnotherapist Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), who (least necessary spoiler warning) has her own agenda and begins playing both men against each other.

The problems with Trance's, frankly stupid, ménage a trios, involve spoiling a lot of plot revelations from late in the film. Thankfully though there are other problems I can go through before we have to cross that bridge starting with the main character. First things first, McAvoy gives a great, convincing performance as Simon, a character that undergoes a number of changes to persona without delving into split personality syndrome. Shifting seamlessly from charming lad about town, to impotent runt, to borderline psychotic all while ultimately staying the same person. The problem though is that we’re never introduced to Simon as a person of depth on a journey we want to follow. We know he’s confident, meticulous and something of a gambler but that’s it, it’s all external never showing the heart of it. Why he is stealing the painting, what pressure is he under, what will be the consequences of him failing?

In Vertigo we feel for Scottie because he’s a man of action now crippled by fear. In Oldboy we feel for Dae Su because he’s an innocent man imprisioned for a dehumanising amount of time. Simon however is a handsome young man with a good job and a modern London flat. He’s the victim of entirely his own circumstances and no amount of fingernail pulling will make us engage with him. The result is that much of the qualities you associate with a film noir; empthy , tension, intrigue are completely absent because you simply don’t care.

It’s possible this would have been avoided by simply opening with Simon post-concussion. It would have allowed us to piece together his character and sympathise with his situation before thrusting him into the plot. An episode of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror did this to great effect earlier in the year though for some reason it also gets ludicrous once Tuppence Middleton shows up.

A far better mystery is Rosario Dawson as the hypnotherapist who, right off the bat, is established as knowing more than she lets on and quickly becomes master manipulator of both Simon and Franck. The problem here though is that there’s little indication of seduction and every indication of farting around. Her therapy session seem built around not rebuilding Simon’s memory but positioning him and Franck into a state of vulnerability, which would only encourage suspicion and hostility (towards her, not each other). At one point Franck even comments that they’re not making any progress while she lives out her power fantasies, which stood out because I was thinking the exact same thing.

See, and this is where I throw up the SPOILER WARNING, it’s easy to write this off as part of the real plot, which is Elizabeth’s ridiculously convoluted revenge against Simon, who is revealed to have been an abusive ex-boyfriend she alludes to in the film. Elizabeth not only hypnotises Simon to forget their relationship but also to orchestrate the heist and double cross the criminals he is conveniently acquainted with to steal a famous painting that he spent a few seconds of screen time talking about.

Now I’m of the opinion that a lot of the time plot holes aren’t a massive problem. Questions of how over the top this plan is, how much omniscience it demands of Elizabeth and how perfectly everything is already in place to enact it shouldn’t matter. They shouldn’t matter if the reveal is of dramatic and devastating consequence, NOT if it’s some random nice painting the protagonist happens to like. This twist is so random and impersonal that I can’t help but think about how many plot holes have manifested in pursuit of such a pointless endgame.

After that what else is there to say? As established the supporting cast are little more than sacks of meat counting down to the point where they have to take a bullet to demonstrate a characters descent into darkness. Apparently one of them is associated with Simon before the events of the film, I say ‘apparently’ because I don’t think he ever actually speaks to any of them. Maybe he isn’t real, maybe none of them are real, mere figments in what must be the least imaginative dream sequences since Inception. The action is of almost cartoonish quality, sucking up any real threat of death like a Dyson. So in short let’s call this one a rare misstep for Boyle and ask that he not try to overdo it on his next film which, in spite of everything, I still eagerly anticipate.