The Zero Theorem: Zero = 100%

Okay cards on the table first. Yes, Terry Gilliam's latest world of wonderful weirdness The Zero Theorem came out back in March, several weeks ago. You may also remember that it came out and screened in cinemas for about ten minutes before being shoved aside for the latest half-hearted Hunger Games/Twilight clone. But thanks to the good people at Bristol's Cube Cinema I was able to catch a screening last week, one well worth the trip to Stokes Croft.

I'm somewhat glad I was able to see this in the hindsight of Richard Ayoade's The Double because, while I mostly liked The Double, The Zero Theorem feels like the film it wants to be. A far more nuanced take on individuality built organically into the world of the film. And with a conclusion that offers a satisfying level of complexity for such a weighty subject.

The near-future of The Zero Theorem is one with an abundance of colour. Stark, neon colours carelessly plastered onto grey streets and glum people. Vibrant adverts register each member of the public, screaming offers of meaning at them yet acknowledge no one as an individual. The ostentatious aesthetics of Gilliam's world are embraced by people desperately seeking uniqueness, even if it is only an empty illusion.

The only one sharp to this is our protagonist Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) who despite his eccentricity and intellect knows he is not unique. He refers to himself with plural pronouns, dresses in the dreariest grey and is as bald as an unformed foetus. However despite his logical nature Qohen is a man of faith. Not religious faith, although living in a Christian Church, a monument to the original deification of the individual, suggests otherwise. Qohen has faith that a phone call is coming, not yet another cold call but one intended for him and him alone, one that will reveal his life's meaning.

Naturally then Qohen would prefer to work from home, which the shady spectre of 'Management' (Matt Damon) permits provided he can solve The Zero Theorem, a complex mathematical formula  that will determine if the universe is really for nothing. With Qohen at work it is a combination of Gilliam's absorbing direction of Waltz's frustrated performance that keep you watching. You'll be surprised how much sympathy can be wrought from watching a man fiddle with computer graphics on a screen but the aggressive anxiety of Qohen is both funny and sad. It helps of course that even the smallest prop is an oddity, adding an air of absurdity to an otherwise mundane narrative.

To break the flow of Qohen's misery comes the lascivious Bainsley (Melanie Thierry), a woman hired by Management to ease his mind via the virtual world. The chemistry between Waltz an Thierry is charming enough but it remains transparent throughout that this is an entirely artificial relationship. While Qohen is eventually willing to believe in it unfortunately we aren't. The relationship does crash in the end and it crashes hard, but had this been better built as something potentially genuine it might have resonated better with the audience.

The second interloper into Qohen's misery is Bob (Lucas Hedges), Management's teenage computer prodigy. Bob is the personification of individual potential, enormous talent with no clearly defined path even if the Orwellian Overloads are trying to pave one for him. Instead he indulges in base pleasures, lust and gluttony which eventually rubs of on Qohen. In many ways he is Qohen's opposite, seeing himself as individual while the rest of humanity is a nameless mass unworthy of the brain cells it would take to identify.

While Bainsley's influence on Qohen is intended to reinforce Qohen's worldview Bob eventually serves to break it. Forcing him to realise that his phone call is nothing but a delusion, that his life may truly be as meaningless as the universe itself. Bob's solution to the existential truth of reality is to placate himself with life's pleasures, to him his life has meaning. Managment's is entirely corporate, a business believes that nothing is for nothing as long as there is profit to be made. And for one brief moment Bainsley had found meaning in Qohen.

As Qohen's worldview and reality collapse around him it becomes clear that if existence does not matter then neither does agonising over it. The only meaning of any value to Qohen is that which he creates for himself. The film strands him in a virtual reality, or a dream it really no longer matters. But there he has control, he can create meaning, he can be one.

While there are some weaknesses to Qohen's story Gilliam's direction makes it feel like a seamless character journey. Flowing from scene to scene organically in a world which is both a visual joy and perfect reflection of the film's theme. Engaging, funny and poignant The Zero Theorem may not meet the success of it's spiritual predecessor Brazil but I feel it'll stand as one of the directors better works.

Calvary: Have the Father Dead jokes been done already?

Calvary is a film which showcases the best and worst traits of John Michael McDonagh's rising directorial talent. A funny, tensely paced black comedy with a protagonist both shar and endearing at its heart. A thought piece on the role of the Catholic Church in contemporary Ireland, the role of a good man in a world of cynicism. Possibly even, if the title is anything go by a rebelling of the story of Christ, though any disciples our protagonist might have are sorely absent.

The film blends dark humour with a foreboding sense of doom better than any film in recently memory. Practically a series of vignettes and a series with a killer opener (forgive me Father) at that. A sinister scene as Father James Lavelle (Brendan Gleeson) recieves a confessional from his future murderer. A promise to murder him next Sunday morning, for the collective sins of his church, with its dialogue dripping with contemptful remarks and blunt delivery. 

 Over the course of the week each new scene builds Father Lavelle's world and the dimensions to his character. His emotionally fragile daughter Fiona (Kelly Reilly) visiting from London following a suicide attempt. His fellow clergymen, one dismissively self-indulgent Bishop and an almost Dougal-esque fellow priest. And the ensemble of sinners in Lavelle's parish who provide much of the gallows humour. 

To this end McDonagh assembles a stellar cast of Irish actors, including Chris O'Dowd, Dylan Moran and Aiden Gillen (who Game of Thrones fans will recognise as Littlefinger). Considering the comic backgrounds of Moran and O'Dowd it's surprising how much menace can be squeezed out of each character. The entire cast gives each laugh a tense atmosphere knowing it could be coming from a potential murderer.

As the days countdown it becomes clear just how much vice permeates the village and how at odds Lavelle's good-nature is with the world around him. Sometimes the sins of the Catholic Church loom over the film like the rock of Benbulbin, other times they are thrown into dialogue like a shot in the face. Yet it seems even worse than that. These people have not simply lost faith in the church but in good people, in goodness itself. Perhaps that is McDonaghs real reasoning in setting out to kill Lavelle, destroying something pure so we can understand its value.

We may however never know as McDonangh is far too keen to encourage ambiguity over answers, more for artistic indulgence than anything genuine. Certain scenes and transitions seem edited in such a way to obscure perception to the point of seeming non sequitar at times. For example at one point Lavelle is boarding a plane intending to flee but changes his mind. But the next shot is simply Lavelle driving a car, with no indication that he's still in his own car returning to the village. It's a teething problem of rising directors, the understanding that establishing shots are not simply there to create atmosphere but to communicate story. Still it's none the less distracting.

At the end of the day though Calvary's biggest problem is a place where it matters most, the emotional stuff. Sure Father Lavelle is an endearing character, one most deserving of a happy ending but when it comes for the full emotional weight of the character the film simply doesn't pull it off like a punch to the gut. It's a variety of factors, while the wit is razor sharp the dramatic dialogue can be so cliche as to break immersion. Plus aforementioned ambiguity to Lavelle's decision means that while it's something we can understand it's not something we can crucially feel.

Calvary is a good film that flies close to greatness. Being at once a thoughtful character piece, commentary on a wealth of religious and social issues and one of the best black comedies of the year should be an accomplishment in itself. Unfortunately it can't tie all of it together we'll enough to rise above.

SPOILER WARNING

Another of the film's issues, which I feel is going to make or break the film for most, ties back to the issue of ambiguity but relates to important plot information that I didn't feel belonged in the whole review. So this part is staying separate for the benefit of anyone who reads this but is still interested in seeing the film.

So Father Lavelle arrives at the beach Sunday moning as instructed and is met by...Chris O'Dowd. Seriously, that's it. The film spends over ninety minutes teasing most of the village's men with this 'whodunit in potentia' only to seemingly pick one candidate at random. Undermining much of the emotional weight of everything the film has been building towards. But even after he pulls the trigger it's not over.

Sometime later we see O'Dowd receiving a visitor in prison, Fiona, who doesn't say anything but cries a little. Now there are two options as to what this means, either she was visiting to speak to O'Dowd, trying to gain understanding of what he did and see if she could forgive. Or the more interesting option, that she was visiting to confirm that he had done as instructed. That she had arranged her father to be killed and potentially had been the voice in the confessional simply using O'Dowd as a mouthpiece. 

This doesn't change the impact or quality of the film of course but it does bring new perspective to the scenes between Fiona and her dad. The idea that this wasn't simply a post-suicide visit but Fiona's final attempt to reconcile her issues with her father and the church which he now belongs to. Interesting but in the end only my personal speculation.

Ayoade Doubles Down on Success

When Richard Ayoade made his directorial debut with Submarine there was some truth to the revelation among critics that suddenly Moss from The IT Crowd was the next Wes Anderson. In addition to the emphasis on all the quaint, twee aesthetics of 1980s Welsh domesticity there was a nakedly unreal quality reminiscent of Anderson's work. In the case of Submarine it was highlighting its own unreality through the narrative framework of a diegetic biographical film seen from the protagonist, Oliver's, perspective.

In The Double however there's no symbiosis between the theme at play and the aesthetic quirkiness for which the film is likely to be noted for. Ayoade constructs a dreary world of wage-slave drudgery made up of clunky, beige machinery and harsh, blaring sound effects. But it's an incidental element this time not a part of its DNA and its presence can become something of a distraction. Admittedly t not as big a distraction as playing Spot the Jobbing British Actor as Ayoade reunites Submarine cast members Sally Hawkins, Noah Taylor, Craig Roberts, Paddy Considine and Yasmin Paige among others.

The film retains only the bones of the Dostoyevsky novel of the same name as office drone Simon James (Jesse Eisenberg) descends into madness upon the appearance of his doppelgänger James Simon (also Eisenberg). Even before the titular double enters the scene Simon finds himself losing proof of his identity. Acknowledged by virtually no one save angelic love object Hannah (Mia Wasikowska) the appearance of James more exacerbates an existing problem that the film spends the first third establishing.

Yes it has to be said that The Double starts off slow, to the point where it seems Jessie Eisenberg won't be able to carry the whole film. But as soon as Jessie Eisenberg shows up then the film gains whole new life. The chemistry between Eisenberg and Eisenberg is electrifying with Eisenberg's meek romantic a perfect foil for Eisenberg's sexually charged slacker.

Okay, in all seriousness Eisenberg nails both roles. Simon James and James Simon are dead-on visual representations of a talented actor's two major comedy personas. The former being the kind of pitiable Michael Cera-esque sad sack we've always known Eisenberg can perform in his sleep. As his more extroverted self though he's a rapid-fire Id, shooting off lines so fast it takes a moment to register that he's said something hilariously horrible. Providing the films biggest laughs in contrast to the stilted, apathetic British humour that permeates the rest of the film. 

That the film manages to maintain its comedic nature as the story veers into more dramatic and darker territory is a blessing. Though it clearly struggles at times, making ill-advised ventures into physical comedy that can't stick the landing. As his loss of identity grows and grows at the hands of James' machination Eisenberg's desperation comes to the fore. His position as the universe's whipping boy, a place where the film once found laughs, becomes a profound tragedy.

If only the same could be said of the ending. The film systematically eliminates the things which define Simon's identity; his appearance, his job, the people he cares about but has little to say about the concept itself. Our desire for identity is something that comes from our society, an overpopulated, over-bureaucratised world of drudgery where our own contribution can seem insignificant. The solution to the loss of this should be more than taking it back even if it is the most efficient for a visual medium.

A shallow ending should not put one off The Double however. It's a visually unique, funny and affecting film. A stand-out duel performance from Eisenberg and proof that Richard Ayoade will be a figure in British film for a while.

What goes on Under the Skin?

In case you were wondering Under the Skin is a film about how individuals are integrated into the collective mass of a species or social structure. Confused? Okay here's how it works; Scarlett Johansson and Paul Brannigan play what are implicitly aliens whose creation process is represented by a pinprick of light against a black background. Eventually the light disappears and the black mass is revealed to be a viscous sludge that is slowly surrounded by white, forming what resembles the human eye.

Throughout the first half the image of people entering and emerging from the all-encompassing blackness recurs. A dimly lit shot of a motorcyclist dressed all in black. The dark field from which Branigan retrieves the body that serves as Johansson's template. Most notably of course is the environment which Johansson's alien seductress takes a series of victims back to. Always male, always young.They all sink into the darkened pool from which she first emerged and now glides across like Christ on the Sea of Galilee.

In fact while she does not sink she is still amalgamated into the darkness of the shadows until her victims disappear and she can walk back into the light seemingly never breaking stride...until she can't.   Like everything else in the film it's never made explicitly clear what happens but one encounter with a pitiable deformed man detaches her from the whole. Forced to look at herself as an individual for the first time she lets him go.

In deviating from the programme she detaches from the mass. The image then becomes an all encompassing white, in the form of either fog or snow. And yet she can never fully integrate with it as she did with the black. Eventually she is taken in by a good Samaritan (A cliched sequence that forms the films weakest act) who offers some respite. But when the time comes to consummate their relationship, they can't. Presumably it is a function her artificial body lacks.

Unable to connect to the only person she has left she wanders into the woods, alone. And there she dreams of a connection to this world. In the films most beautiful shot she is superimposed onto the landscape of the forest, intimately bound to nature. Then she is brutally pulled out of it by a sexual predator. A reminder that while sex can connect us to humanity it can also tear us away. They fight and in the struggle her true form is revealed. A black skelatal arrangement of stiff, coarse limbs. 

In horror her attacker pours kerosene over her lights it. She stumbles forward and collapses into the snow. Finally given the one universal link to all creatures, death.

So is the film good? Well that depends on your tolerance for extraneous artistic indulgence as the film is loaded with abstract, sometimes non sequitar imagery. 

The premise at least brings intrigue delivered in a meaner both hypnotic and suspenseful as you see a predator becoming more and more adept at luring its prey. All of which has a suitably grisly payoff. However the story suffers from falling into the regressive archetype of the femme fatale using sexuality as a weapon. Plus the white knight coming to her aid feels overly romanticised, especially given the way in which it falls apart. all of which suggest that director Jonathan Glazer doesn't know how to explore the concept to its fulfillment.

In a way unique to the role Johansson is perfectly cast. Her doll-like beauty and imperfect accent all work to suggest a rough approximation of a human being. Which goes along way to remaining onside with the character as the film get progressively slower. Johansson imbues the character with enough inhuman mannerisms the suggest her actions are our of programming as opposed to malice. Ironically her inhumanity is what makes her second act development empathetic.

At the end of the day Under the Skin is food for the mind but not the soul. Yes it's all very interesting to think about how we integrate as an entire species but there's usually some emotion to anchor that integration. Emotion that the film consistently lacks when really it should be about discovering it. .

American Hustle: The Strange Effects of Bradley Cooper

Does anyone else have this problem? Lately it seems like whenever I watch a film starring Bradley Cooper it feels like time passes much more slowly. I first noticed it during The Place Beyond the Pines and just put it down to the film being badly in need of a good editor. After all the film spans multiple years, characters and generation and it would only take a little tweaking to the story a more fluid feel and spare my legs the DVT.

American Hustle however follows the same ensemble through events that spanned a few years yet somehow feels longer than the time Solomon Northup spent picking cotton. Partially because all notion of progression over time is lost in a series of non sequitar scenes with seemingly no bearing on the bigger picture. The actual mechanics of the Abscam Scandal, on which the film is based is lost among petty confrontations as the main players try to out-annoy each other. It's like Ocean's Eleven if you replaced all the exposition and heist planning with George Clooney and Brad Pitt engaged in a series of slap fights. Entertaining yes, but it robs the film of drama.

The film can't seem to make its mind up on what it wants to achieve from act one. As Cooper's FBI Agent Richie DiMaso rumbles con artists Irving Rosenfield (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser/Edith Greensley (Amy Adams, donning a variety of ostentatious accents) he blackmails them into lining up four additional arrests. Then it's just altruistic politician Carmine Polito, then it's a prominent mob boss, then it's ten congressmen, which point it needs a really elaborate con to arrest my interest.

The film is so bloated and unstructured that it ends up pushing potentially interesting story elements to the margins. Irving's doomed friendship with Carmine and Jennifer Lawrence's standout performance as his oblivious wife barely get a look in. Particularly egregious when you consider how much Lawrence has featured in the films marketing relative to her actual screen time.

Lawrence's role, both in characterisation and accent, is practically a microcosm of the films goofy tone and over-the-top aesthetics. Big hair, low-cut dresses and valour suits. All of which work for a consistently comedic tone which the film carries for the majority of its run...right up until it doesn't. Suddenly the film takes a really dark turn, the kind the Coen Brothers could make work but comes out of left-field in director David O. Russell's hands.

It isn't helped by coming around the fifth act when you're already hoping for an ending. Nor the fact that the culprit is DiMaso, the petulant, perpetually dissatisfied perm-job who's been begging for slap the entire film. And while his actions make sense in terms of his character the fact that everyone keeps working with him adds a grim air to subsequent scenes.

American Hustle's worst crime is simply not knowing what it wants to be. An outlandish premise and thoroughly game cast are the ingredients for a fun, campy crime caper. But the total absence of pace, tension and context makes the film little more than disposable fun. Then ruins the fun in its determination to emulate Goodfellas. In fact at one point a cameo from a Goodfellas star elevates the films entire mood and quality into something truly nail biting. As though Scorsese is sending a cinematic messenger to Russell saying 'You think you're ready to take the reins, you ain't ready to take 'em an I ain't givin' 'em up.'

Lex Luthor: Eisenberg no Heisenberg?

So...that happened. The last week or so has been so awash with casting rumours that it took a while to establish if this was real or just pumped out by the studios to generate more free press. A stupid assumption really, Man of Steel 2: Justice League All-Stars has seen so many changes and additions it hardly needs to make up stuff to get talked about. Though I'm sure Warner Bros would prefer we weren't talking about it with the same tone one might discuss reconstructing the Titanic or the Wii U.

But whatever the consequences it's true. Jesse Eisenberg, of Zombieland and The Social Network, is going to be Lex Luthor in Man of Steel 2: Electric Boogaloo. My opinion? Good move. I like Eisenberg and not just because my girlfriend thinks I resemble him. The fact is back in the day it was easy to write off Eisenberg as a Michael Cera clone; awkward, stammering skinny white guy inexplicably coming out on top. It was so obvious that apparently even he knew it and endeavoured to avoid that terrible fate Cera had suffered; typecasting.

The Social Network demonstrated how far Eisenberg could take the introvert, playing a detached, calculating, yet somehow endearing Mark Zuckerberg. To follow he went on to play a Seth Rogan-esque slacker in 30 Minutes or Less, the only film where the title explains roughly how long the film would remain in cultural consciousness. And as a member of the orthodox Jewish community and  only thing worth seeing in the crime drama Holy Rollers.

So Eisenberg has the chops to play a Lex Luthor but there's still the one thing everyone's gonna be snarking about on Twitter. At age 30 (and hardly looking it) he'll be the youngest film version of Lex to date after Gene Hackman (48 for Superman) and Kevin Spacey (46 for Superman Returns). And while he's the same age as Superman himself, Henry Cavill, the idea of a younger and specifically young-looking Lex will be hard for some to get on board with.

The reason I don't see it being a major problem though is because I see nothing about Lex Luthor, especially John Byrne's 1986 redesigned buisinessman Lex that most are familiar with, as intrinsically old. After all, who is Lex Luthor? An insanely successful businessman, incredibly proud of with achievements, possessing a genius level intellect, scrupulous morals and a huge seething resentment of Superman. None of these things are the exclusive domain of the old. 

Even today American culture has this idealised image of the hardworking capitalist. Men who've spent lifetimes building an empire on nothing but sweat and pep talks from Uncle Sam. But that doesn't exist anymore, not since the first dot-com millionaire made the Fortune 500 on his parents computer. We live in an age of young billionaires with questionable morals, billionaires just like like Mark Zuckerberg. In fact that's probably what made the penny drop at Warner Bros in the first place.

So yeah Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor? Warner Bros can put that in the win category. Doesn't make me anymore confident that Man of Steel 2:Rise of the Multi-Bear, won't collapse under its own weight but...baby steps.

Oh and about that title? Yeah I would've been psyched to see Superman fight Walter White too. It's thrilling to see a goofy, comic actor like Bryan Cranston getting all these great roles. But Cranston's whole thing is mild mannered guys thrown into dangerous situations and seeing how crazy they go trying to deal. It'd be difficult to pull that off while still taking him serious as a credible threat to freaking Superman. Maybe after he's taken on Godzilla...

12 Years a Slave: A long, miserable experience that you must see!

In some ways the story of Solomon Northup is one so compelling and so wrought with tragedy that it's difficult to believe no one's tried to adapt it to the big screen before. The fact that it hasn't is just another damning indictment of the film industry's unwillingness to tackle the issue of slavery. And while 12 Years a Slave has been long overdue it's timing has fortunately allowed it to be the mainstream breakthrough of Hunger and Shame director Steve McQueen.

Northup's story is one about the fragility of freedom for African Americans before the Civil War, a fragility that can still be seen today with instances of institutional racism in the West. Born a free man Northup is a talented and respected violinist living with his family in Saratoga, New York. Then one day he makes the acquaintance of two circus performers offering his a job in Washington, only to drug him, strip him of identification and sell him into slavery.

The fall from free man to slave is handled not so much as a transition but a jarring, instantaneous switch. Driving home the way in which liberty can be stolen in the wink of a eye. From there on the film becomes one long and relentless portrait of the indignities and violence Northup witnesses and suffers first hand. Gradually eroding his attachment to his old life through hardship after hardship. Ageing him physically and driving him despair. 

I recall writing in my Filth review how minor details like sound design and editing can kill a films intensity, especially during difficult to swallow scenes of violence. Thankfully McQueen knows this and does not permit the mercy that a lack of immersion would be. Every whip crack, every strain of the noose rings out over the painfully drawn-out scenes of punishment. The term 'torture porn' doesn't even apply, this is a historical reenactment of one man's suffering and if you struggle to endure it that's kind of the point.

Key to our ability to suffer along with Northup is a sympathetic performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor, no easy feat considering that his character is locked in a state of constant restraint.Make no mistake though Ejifor nails the various stages of Northup development, from the gentle stroll of an affable free man to the determined posturing of a defiant victim. Most pitiable of course is the broken Solomon, with the deadened glare of the hopeless Ejiofor is dripping with misery and sweat.

If there's one problem it's that the impression of Northup aging physically comes very late in the day. The film struggles to convey the passage of time badly enough and it's not until one scene towards the third acts that the years begin to show on Northup's face. Maybe that's the point to have the weight of all he's endured come crashing down in one moment, but regardless it robs the film of a sense of scope.

Also problematic are the occasional touches of directorial flair McQueen brings at inappropriate moment. The scene I mentioned above is a whipping scene shot with one lengthy and tortuous take. It covers the actions of several principle characters with painstaking detail and it a delight to watch...right up until it ends of a shakycam shot of needless symbolism.

These are complaints but minor ones. 12 Years a Slave will still be one of the better films you see this year. A powerhouse performance by Ejiofor as well as newcomer Lupita Nyong'o as one particularly put-upon slave Patsey. Patsey is the subject of sadistic slaver Edwin Epps, played by McQueen's long-time collaborator Michael Fassbender. Fassbender is a great actor, especially in villainous roles but his portrayal of Epps is something new. A smiling, twitching pot of pent-up rage, a living embodiment of the national mental illness that was slavery.

12 Years a Slave is not a film you'll enjoy but is something you need to experience. An window into the life of a slave tailored to immerse contemporary audience. The film is already nominated for several BAFTAs and it'll be a crime is Ejiofor doesn't pick up some Oscar buzz for Best Actor. Because if you think you've endured a lot watching the film, just imagine what the people making it went through.