Doctor Strange or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Yeah, that joke is probably played out by now but it speaks to an inherent truth about the film itself. Doctor Strange is a flawed, flawed film. In its structure, writing, composition, even (and I cringe at saying this) in the performances of its actors. But to say that is to make the situation sound far worse than it is because Doctor Strange is the first film sin Star Wars: The Force Awakens that a film holds together in spite of its flaws. Perhaps it's a critics thing; the fact is that everything that's good about Strange is the kind of by-the-numbers, playful light show that Marvel has been excelling at for eight years now. The bad stuff is just far more interesting to delve into from a critical standpoint and if you're not interested in critique then it's easy to stop worrying and enjoy the ride. That's OK, it's a fun ride. There's just room to improve it.

A good start would have been the opening. An arbitrary action beat to pump up momentum, which it needs to do since the next 90 minutes will be relatively action-free. It feels like a cynical move on Marvel's part, assuming a goldfish-level attention span on the part of its audience. Especially egregious as the proceeding two acts are infinitely more compelling than any amount of building-shifting CGI. Like all the best Marvel films the plot is driven by character and in Cumberbatch's mangled hands Strange is a character to follow halfway across the world. Admittedly the establishing scenes do wear out their welcome. Character actor Michael Stuhlbarg is always a welcome sight but the film dedicates too much time to him as Strange's pre-crash whipping boy. A clumsy demonstration of the pride that goes before his fall.

Then there's the fall itself. It's no easy feat showing a man with so much losing everything until we have to choice but to sympathise. Ironically the result is as hollow as Strange's luxury apartment, compounded by the token presence of Rachel McAdams' in the role of Christine. Make no mistake, McAdams acquits herself well but it's painfully clear throughout that this character only exists as a sounding board for Strange's emotions and expositions.

No the film never really takes off until an hour in when Strange finally arrives at what is basically Nepalese Hogwarts, for an extended training montage. It's there that the film can really show off it's USP; a succession of visually inventive acid trips/magical mind journeys meant to communicate Strange's journey. Strange's arc harks back to Marvel Phase 1 territory; in which a talented egomaniac finds the means and drive to use their great potential for something good. In this case instead of applying his brilliant mind to saving lives as a neurosurgeon, Strange discovers he can save entire dimensions by applying himself to the mystical arts.

It's here that Cumberbatch endears himself to us. Presenting a man accustomed to being the best in his field now held back by doubt, in both his situation and himself. With each victory bringing a visually unique delight. Delights which only increase as Strange's rebuilds his self-confidence. It's not exactly Neo learning to accept the unreality of The Matrix but rather typical Marvel fun.

Eventually though the film has to build to a traditional climax involving a face-off against Strange's polar opposite. In this case Mads Mikkelsen as the guylinered Kaecilius whoese motivations are typically all-encompassing and vague for a Marvel villain. A rogue pupil of Tilda Swinton's Ancient One, using the mystical arts to summon a malevolent god to bring the universe to a plain of infinite life...and you know what it doesn't matter. By now everyone knows Marvel's terrible track record of villains. Not to mention the fact that their films are more about heroism being an outlet for flawed men (for it is always men) to resolve their personal baggage.

Strange makes that thing clear more than anything as it proceeds to run out the clock with a series of impressive set pieces and effects sequences. Even the heavily promoted shots of New York City folding in on itself ultimately does nothing to move the plot along.

And then there's the ending, a clever piece of abstract thinking in which Strange traps the Dark god Dormammu in an infinte loop of time. Only releasing him if he leaves Earth and takes Kaecilius with him. It's a clever solution but dogged by a hurried execution. There's an opportunity for an entire Groundhog Day of scenes in which Domammu tries to torture Strange into releasing him, then maybe ignoring him, toying with him maybe even reasoning with him. Imagine Strange whining about his relationship troubles to a god who exists beyond space and time. Imagine Dormammu relenting, abandoning his conquest of Earth just to be rid of Cumberbatch. Instead Dormammu just tortures Strange for a few minutes before getting bored. Undermining any power he may have possessed as a villain.

It's an ending indicative of the quality of Doctor Strange; a film full of good ideas that could have been so much better. Cumberbatch cuts himself a distinctive character in a universe already brimming with compelling leads. And despite their lack of impact the various visual effects feel original, fun and inventive. The pieces are all great, just muddled in the way they're put together.

The Witch: A New England Haunting

The Witch, or The VVitch as it appears on the opening credits, is an impeccably crafted piece of work that falls just short of being and outright hit in its own regard. A unique and terrifying horror film that mixes puritanical colony drama with supernatural scares but is sadly somewhat poorly paced and, as a result suffers for it as a whole.

With painstaking historical detail the film presents a fanatically puritan family leaving their New England colony believing the local government to be religiously impure. Out in the forest they hope to live closer to God, foraging and growing their own food. Quickly thought things go devastatingly wrong when the family's newborn is straight up abducted and killed by a witch. There's no playing around here, no overstretched ambiguity, the family is plagued immediately by a wrinkled hook-nosed crone who snatches babies.

Admittedly the actual encounters with the witch itself are nicely spaced apart in favour of the gradual disintegration of the family. It's kind of amazing how the film can more or less start with them encountering devastation and go downhill from there. A major part is the interplay between the family, reeling from a tragedy while still struggling to eke out a living in a seemingly barren land. You can read all manner of allegory on the failings of fundamentalist religion that inform the dynamics. From the virtual absence of compassion from the mother to the utter incompetence of the father as a provider.

It's an ensemble work but Anya Taylor-Joy occupies the nominal lead role as Thomasin, the eldest daughter on the cusp of womanhood (albeit womanhood in the 1630s). She plays the whole thing with something I can only describe as determined uncertainty. Thomas has no idea what's going on as much as the rest of them but she refuses to be phased by the tragedy that befalls her. Only reaching breaking point at the end of the film where everything goes full-on bonkers. There's the sense that she is the grounded centre keeping the family together and when that fails she succumbs to temptation.

However the actual 'scary sequences', the part everyone's here to see prove something of a letdown. Little in the build-up of tension despite the looming dark forest and unnerving score. At the moment of release the film favours surreal imagery over anything that would be considered chilling. On the whole a well-realised concept somewhat lacking in execution.

Ghostbusters 2016 Review

A lot of the time it kind of sucks to be at the threshold of a late Gen-X/Early Millenial. Getting all the slack stick associated with Generation X but never really growing up with the nostalgic properties that defines so much of their culture. Sometimes though it's a boon. By coming relatively late to things like Ghostbusters or Transformers (still never seen the 1986 film) I was able to view them as works of art and not the entirety of my childhood. So just as I was able to view Transformers as a bad film, rather than some great desecration, I was able to come to 2016's reboot of Ghostbusters with an open mind. Hell, despite that fact that I was rooting for this all-female line up I was even able to recognise that it has major flaws in the writing and editing that drag it just short of being great.

So yes, after all the hype it turns out that Ghostbusters 2016 is...fine. Not a disaster but also not making anyone's top ten at the end of the year. A broad, cartoonish, character-based action comedy saved from the doldrums of mere adequacy by the strong chemistry between its cast and an outright star-making turn from SNL comedian Kate McKinnon.

To lead such a merely adequate film we have Kristen Wiig-american comedy's poster child for adequacy-once again opposite Bridesmaids co-star Melissa McCarthy-American Comedy's poster child for awesome! Both play accomplished scientists who once closely collaborated on a book about the paranormal but Wiig's character Abbey now wants nothing to do with. However the book leads McCarthy's Erin Gilbert (her first real 'straight' role) and engineer Jillian Holtzmann (McKinnon) to a series of powerful apparitions being empowered by a mysterious figure. When one of these apparitions draws the attention of historian Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) she offers to join the group as a guide, completing the Ghostbusters team.

From the outset the film is peppered with sharp comic lines that, thanks to a cast of comedy alumni, always hit their mark. What jokes don't work are usually the ones built around garish CGI ghosts that never manage to tow the original's line of equal parts Lovecraftian horror and Three Stooges antics. With the exception of a few well-executed scares the film never generates a strong buildup of tension to be undercut with a suitable punchline. Indeed halfway through the film begins to even suffer the original's problem of being overly reliant of slapstick set pieces.

What jokes do work are those built around the characters, their relationship to one another and how they view the world. From Abbey's failed attempts to maintain composure in the face of the ridiculous to Patty's world-weary attitude to the supernatural. Erin and Abbey's relationship is the connective glue to it all built on a sincere bedrock of friendship with just enough difference in personas to generate conflict. But as you've probably heard the real MVP is Holtzmann, a melting pot of weirdness and tech-fetishes that steals every scene she's in. McKinnon's delivery is always out of left field and perfectly timed. They're the kind of jokes that work on multiple-levels as anyone who's ever been 'the weird one' in a group of friends will perfectly understand.

Finally kudos needs to go to Chris Helmswoth who's likely been nursing a desire to branch out into comedy. His useless secretary is a beautiful hodgepodge of dumb blonde cliches punching upward at handsome male entitlement. That the writers just never run out of ways for him to be inept, idiotic or unjustifiably smug is an accomplishment in itself. Though the jokes made about him do tend to wear thin towards the third act.

Ah yes, the third act that easily forms the films biggest problem. To be fair there are editing problems across the board including the hastily added scene of the group snarkily reading hateful internet comments (subtle Feig, real subtle). But it's clear that some scenes designed to split the group have been removed without much afterthought. New York being transformed into different periods of time feels like something that should have been more fleshed out in the whole film and would have better demonstrated Patty's intellectual prowess. Whatever was intended though feels mostly shelved with the Avengers-style big climax mostly covered by green screen effects instead.

So we find 2016's Ghostbusters a touch uneven but satisfying nonetheless. Thankfully what it gets wrong feel like tertiary elements that just knock it down to three-star territory. Whereas what it gets right i.e. the tone and chemistry between the four leads are what elevate away from being a complete disaster.

When Marnie Was There

I've described Studio Ghibli as being hit-and-miss at times with their output and no where is this more evident when they try their hands at teenage or young adult drama. Whisper of the Heart was a sweet and understated character piece while Ocean Waves is an absolute slog. It is a relief then to report that When Marnie was There is a wonderful, if small way for the studio to depart from feature film production. As with Whisper it finds its feet by focusing on one incredibly sympathetic character and taking her through a fanciful, emotional journey that leaves her the stronger for it.

When we first meet Anna she is isolated and vulnerable. Suffering an asthma attack during an art session where its made visibly clear that her problems are for more psychological than physical. Even if her quiet apology of 'I cost you more money' doesn't give her emotional state away the animation on her melancholy expression does. Her awkward running from fellow teenagers, her slouched or outright curled posture all gives the impression of a person riddled with anxiety.

So it seems only natural that Anna becomes attached to an ethereal and mysterious young girl who is also isolated, albeit in a ghostly marsh-house across the lake,  There's very little in the bond between Marnie and Anna, merely the mutual feeling of being unable to connect with the outside world. In fact Marnie becomes so quickly attached that it seems almost sinister but soon becomes clear that there is something much larger bonding the two.

The ups and downs of Marnie and Anna's friendship takes the form of a series of misadventures from crashing her parents elegant parties to exploring a haunted silo. The latter of these becomes so intense, so dramatic, owing to a sudden storm that all of Anna emotional conflict is painted on the waves. This is Ghibli's animation team operating at their peak with the violent movement of clouds, lightning and rain seamlessly with a distinctive physicality. Like all the best animations the atmosphere is something you could almost feel.

But it isn't just the charming animation that draws audiences to Studio Ghibli. Marnie guides Anna through her emotional conflict in a way that is typically fanciful and endearing, acting as an outlet for all the emotions that she can't express to her well-meaning relatives. Whether knowingly or not she provides Anna with scenarios that test her resolve, awkward social situations, confrontations and ultimately Anna's fear of abandonment. In doing so Anna becomes better equipped for the challenges that keep her from living and she emerges the richer for it.

It all builds to one major twist that provides a deep emotional gut-punch. In all its years Ghibli has never lost the ability to pluck at the heartstrings and in doing so they allow a story of friendship overcoming fears to end full circle.

Girlhood, Motherhood, Leprechaun in the Hood; Literally any one of these would make a better film than Boyhood.

Yes, this is long overdue. I began writing this as a video review that got sidelined by my real-life commitments. But with Linklater's latest 'Everybody Wants Some' out soon this seems as good a time as any to look back in his last critical smash.

In 2002 director Richard Linklater cast then 7-year-old Ellar Coltrane as the lead in Boyhood, originally titled The Twelve Year Project. True to its name over the next twelve years Linklater would periodically assemble the same cast members to cover his main character’s transition from boy to adolescent to the cusp of adulthood, with Coltrane visibly aging in tandem with his character Mason. It was one of the most ambitious casting decisions ever made, requiring Linklater and his four principle cast members to commit to the film for over a decade. And it was all in service of creating the most realistic visual representation of boyhood onscreen.

In this regard the film is undoubtedly a success, accurately portraying the dramatic ebbs and flows of Mason’s mostly average life. There is no singular event during the course of Boyhood that is more or less important than the next, no major formative or transformative moment. As most people will know life often does not have the big, emotional climaxes that we see onscreen and so in dedication to its cause neither does the film. Instead Boyhood is a lengthy series of life events sometimes with little or no connection to each other. Friendships, school, cultural milestones, first job and first love all pass in a disconnected blur. And while this adds a true-to-life quality to the film it also robs us of our ability to invest emotion into events that pass like the tide.

This is especially true of the times when the film tries to suggest the passage of time through the cultural and social changes occurring around Mason. Throwing in our faces facets of early to late 2000s pop culture like Britney Spears songs or Obama campaign posters in a way that feels inorganic and frankly obnoxious. It’s a good way of identifying the individual years but a good film blends visual exposition with story. For Mason these events have no long term impact, they don’t provide him an opportunity to reflect and thus display character and they certainly don’t help to shape his character.

It’s notable that the one element which does impact on Mason is also the one consistent element, his family. At the beginning of the film Mason’s parents, played by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, are already separated, with his father a deadbeat musician and his mother a twenty-something college student.  In many ways they date the film far better than any cultural artefact as they represent the degree of arrested development that Mason’s previous generation lived through. Both are sympathetic and understandable but also are easily the architects of their own problems. Mason’s mother Olivia remarries twice with varying results while his father prolongs his adolescence until adopting a Christian life with a new wife and child.

Before I move on I wanted to make a quick note on Olivia’s second husband played by Marco Peralla. As with the cultural dating of the film this character is such an over exaggerated element that’s it’s difficult to remain immersed. This man screams arsehole in every scene he’s in, so much so that it’s difficult to imagine anyone marrying him. It’s true that people do marry and even stand by difficult people but you need to show why they would stand by that person the shades of grey that attract us. This particularly stands out as it’s one of the only times we see something powerfully dramatic happen in Mason’s life. It feels like the film is trying to write away such a potentially traumatic incident by suggesting that Mason’s stepfather is simply a bad person through and through, whereas in life such incidents are far more complicated.

Finally there is Mason’s sister Samantha who is initially the closest thing the film has to an antagonist. Sam is initially presented as an overachiever, good at sports and school and as a result is far better able to compete for her father’s attention.  As she grows older she eventually starts to see the faults in both her parents and is able to voice the frustrations that it seems Mason can’t.

However her role in the story, as well as other aspects of her character begins to diminish which was actually a logistical problem. Linklater cast his daughter in the role back in 2002 but over the years she lost interest in the character. Eventually she regained her enthusiasm but it’s likely this is the reason why she loses so much prominence in the second act. It’s a shame though because it feels like there’s a far more compelling story in Samantha who unlike Mason undergoes distinct character development throughout the film. 

This is not to say that Mason never changes throughout the course of Boyhood, it’s just that the changes are purely aesthetic. He begins the film as a thoughtful, creative child marred by his own laziness and pretty much ends the film the same way. What changes he does go through are the basic steps of finding your own voice through trial and error; different looks, different, friends, different girlfriends all until he finds what best suits who he is. Mason is a very passive character, letting the waters of life flow over him and shape him rather than deciding on his own course. It’s something that is true of most of us but, well, just isn’t that compelling to watch. 

Without any major change a film loses much of its structure and that’s certainly the case with Boyhood. Very little of the film proceeds with the kind of build-up of a conventional narrative but that’s not to say the characters aren’t moving towards something. The film concludes with Mason’s leaving home for college at which point his mother faces the culmination of her life’s work complete. She’s moved home, become a teacher and built a better life for herself and her children and all to be left alone. It’s a tragedy most mothers face and is easily the most heartfelt and powerful moment in the film. 

It only makes is sadder that I can’t give this film more credit for having its one truly affecting moment after over two hours of set up. Looking back on Linklater’s previous work, particularly the Before trilogy, it does seem that he creates characters rarely intended to be distinct individuals. Rather he uses experiences from real life to create a broad archetype that represents a collective. So it makes sense that this doesn’t resonate with me personally since Starfleet separated me from the collective several years ago.

Boyhood has been gaining critical acclaim across the boards but for me it was never something I could immerse myself in on an emotional level. A long series of individual scenes which rarely provided anything major to empathise over which may be true to life but did not make for a compelling film.

Hail, Caeser! A Story of The Coens

While the Coen Brothers are undeniably the big success story of America's independent film industry, a talented writer/director duo able to make unique arthouse films to huge popularity, they have always had more success at drama than comedy. No Country for Old Men is probably their most mirthless film, lacking even in the kind of gallows humour that made Fargo so watchable.Yet it's one of their most successful, both critically and commercially. When people bring up the comedic craftsmanship of the Coens they will always point to The Big Lebowski, which rightfully stands as one of the all time greats. However outside of The Dude lies the likes of Burn After Reading, Hudsucker Proxy and, dare we say it, Intolerable Cruelty. Yes, The Coens always produce great films but their success in dramatic films, even ones with strong comedic moments, has always been more consistent.

So it's a delight then to report the Hail,Caeser! is perhaps the most definitively successful comedy since The Big Lebowski. At once a love letter and take-down of classic Hollywood that takes one of the industry's least reputable figures and presents him as its biggest advocate. In fact Hail, Ceaser!'s biggest achievement is taking some of the worst representations of the Studio System and finding nuance and even virtue in them.

As with most Coen protagonists E.J. Mannix (Josh Brolin) is the one at the centre of a cast of neurotics, narcissists and dimwits. He's a 'fixer' covering for the scandals his stars bring and resolving the interference from outside sources. We follow Mannix as he attempts to deal with the shenanigans caused by said narcissists during a day of shooting. One of the most compelling things about Mannix though is how he's managed to apply his catholic faith to an occupation fuelled by vice and indulgence. He believes in the value of film, the artistry, the effect it has on culture, on people. Hail, Ceaser! is fundamentally a film about faith and Mannix's faith in his work is steadfast in the face of temptation, in the face of doubt, even in the face of all evidence that he is wrong.

Brolin portrays Mannix with the facade of all the tough guy roles he's played before. Stern, forceful, towering over even the likes of Clooney. Yet all too easily the facade breaks and you see the doubt and temptation crawl over him. You sympathise with his guilt and his desire to flee the gaudy circus when a Lockheed executive approaches him with a lucrative job offer. For all Mannix's intimidation and manipulation he's is one of the most likeable protagonists the Coens have written in some time.

Mannix's main concern is the production of biblical epic Hail, Caeser! already troubled by the picture's dimwitted star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) and the approval of the religious community. The first is resolved in a masterful early scene where heads of various faiths debate the nature of Christ, eventually descending into nitpicking and rambling in front of an increasingly exasperated Mannix. Then the real drama happens when Whitlock is kidnapped and production has to be halted.

While this is the plot you've all seen from the trailers in truth it's only one part of a story built on smaller subplots. The abduction story merely serves as the connective tissue to a series of petty disagreements and tabloid disasters that Mannix is forced to intervene in. From Scarlett Johannssen's starlet falling pregnant with a married man's child to Alden Ehrenreich's capable but awkward cowboy actor roped into a high society drama.

The laughs come thick and fast courtesy of the Coens' delightful dialogue and characterisation. The fact that all these characters are in conflict and yet are obligated to be amenable to each other means no scene is short of tension or wit. Jokes built on the ridiculous necessity to wear a 'fish ass' for work or an editor almost being choked to death by her own film reels are delivered with expert timing and instantly memorable performances. Each setpiece is so well realised as both a classic Hollywood scandal and classic Hollywood production that it's no wonder critics would have rather saw the films Capitol is making than the shenanigans in between.

Once the mysterious cult holding Whitlock reveals itself as The Future, the pieces quickly fall into place regarding the larger meaning at play. Lockheed pursues Mannix with warnings that his career in film is a thing of the past. Not exactly an exageration when you realise exactly when the film is set, when the studio system is facing it's collapse, when the ubiquity of television is on the horizon and the atomic bomb threatens to destroy everything. Whitlock's abductors may be hapless Communists but they serve as the manifestation of his spiritual conflict.

Mannix may have complete and utter faith in the frivolity of Hollywood but that faith is at odds with the reality ahead of him. And yet it's the epitome of that frivolous world that is the source of his salvation. A surprise turn from Hobie Doyle in which Ehrenreich receives his pay-off for having owned every scene as the dullard dust actor. It is through is actions that Mannix's faith in the righteousness of Hollywood is restored and he can return to work a more contented man. In leaving him so the Coens' finally deliver a satisfying conclusion that we leave the happier for.



 

Spotlight: Too Depressing for a Funny Title

Watching Spotlight feels like watching the functioning of an efficient and well-oiled machine. A nuts & bolts procedural from a suitably restrained director that's supported by a top notch cast of actors delivering grounded and realistic performances.

There's almost no directorial flair or intense moments of theatrical performance. In fact you'd be surprised to realise that for a journalism drama there's not even that much in the way of actual drama. For a subject as provocative as child abuse in the catholic church the film remains surprisingly muted. Nobody on the Spotlight team reporting on the church end up publicly shamed for their investigation. Nobody is harassed on the street, ostracised from their community or driven out of their home by angry churchgoers. Hell, the characters even remark with surprise that The Boston Globe isn't being picketed once the scandal is revealed. Yet as santised as the film is it still somehow works as a compelling story.

A big part of that is the clever script by Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer. It presents the real life events of Spotlight's investigation as accurately as possible but with a coherent beginning, middle and end. Opening with the arrival of Marty Baron (Liev Schrieber) as the new editor of The Globe. Baron's role is not only to organically establish the Spotlight Team and what they do (basically long-term investigations of major scandals) but also position him as the outsider, to whom things are done differently, who can encourage the team in ways they ordinarily wouldn't thinks. While the focus then mainly shifts to Spotlight and its investigation Baron remains on hand as the 'big picture' guy, the one less concerned with the individual priests and more the system that allows them to avoid prosecution.

The central theme at play here is willful ignorance. The fact that all of Boston could have seen what was going on if they had the will or consideration to look. So it's no surprise that once Spotlight does look, the evidence begins to pile up and up. Witnesses are brought out of the shadows, patterns in the movement of priests from parish to parish start to emerge and important documents, thought to be sealed under court order, quickly come to light. Information that Spotlight thought buried was, in fact, right under their noses the whole time. The almost effortless success of their investigation soon reveals that the films key conflict is not 'Will this come to light?' but 'Can we really stomach what we're about to discover?'.

To its credit Spotlight is never gratuitous with the grim reality it is unearthing. Most of the crimes committed are discussed in retrospect but with the long-term damage visible in it's victims. It's a testament to the emotional weight that even bit players like Michael Cyril Creighton and Neal Huff can bring to an already stellar cast. The only downside it that this has little impact on the Spotlight team themselves. There are a few tidbits here and there, including Mark Ruffalo's big climax that will likely feature whenever an awards show reaches the film in its nominations. However the scarcity of these scenes causes them to clash with he film's otherwise down-to-earth aesthetic and dialogue.

Yet for all its faults Spotlight works as a piece of journalistic drama. Communicating the procedures and perils of investigative work in the modern era (albeit the modern era of the early 00s). More a process of arranging appointments and tedious legal battles. It may not be cinematic but it is damn compelling.