Silence

“I pray but I am lost. Am I just praying to silence?”

For decades Martin Scorsese has been pushing the limits of the cinematic medium through evocative styling and directorial decisions as a channel for storytelling – so perhaps it’s telling that one of his greatest achievements is his new film, the understated, brooding, minimalistic Silence.

In the 1630s, news reaches St Paul’s College, Macau that Cristóvão Ferreira (Liam Neeson), a Portuguese Jesuit who had helped bring Christianity to the people of Japan, has renounced his faith after being tortured in the anti-Christian purges of Japan. Two of Ferreira’s devout pupils, Father Sebastião Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Francisco Garupe (Adam Driver) cannot believe that their mentor would commit apostasy and set out on a three year long journey to find him.

With the help of an alcoholic fisherman, Kichijiro (Yôsuke Kubozuka) the priests reach Japan and land at Tomogi, a small village with a secret Christian population to which the priests administer the sacrament. Soon however a band of Samurais led by “The Inquisitor” (Issei Ogata) arrive in the village, looking to flush out Christianity from the land and are after the Jesuit priests. Meanwhile, the fate of Father Ferreira remains a mystery.

With Silence, Scorsese strips away the directorial personality he’s built up over nearly fifty years of filmmaking. His camera is almost always static because the beauty and terror of what’s on-screen speaks for itself. The Kluge siblings score is practically non-existent, because like with a smattering of examples from Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas and The Departed, Scorsese’s use of silence is the most powerful sound. His co-authored screenplay doesn’t draw you in like some of his others, but is true to the novel, and aside from a smaller than you might expect role from Liam Neeson, his frequent collaborators are nowhere to be seen. What hasn’t changed is his undying passion and dedication to storytelling. Twenty-five plus years of research, understanding and maturity went into the creation of this, one of his most impressive films to date.

To suggest however that Silence isn’t cinematic would be an injustice to DoP Rodrigo Prieto’s work and would gloss over one of the crucial elements that ties Silence together. With a distinctly minimalist look and feel, the character of the landscape is as mysterious and unforgiving as the inquisitor himself. If Raging Bull is Scorsese’s most physical portrayal of the harsh realities of the body, then Silence is his most visceral representation of how abusively all-encompassing nature can be, and is central to the films depiction of the direct correlation between Buddhist beliefs and the environment – a determinate factor in the fate of the Christian communities living under such intense persecution.

Indeed the core focus of the film is to find some sort of reconciliation between the ancient undying beliefs held in 17th Century Japan and the influx of Christianity, a task simply impossible for the time with many indirect victims on both sides. Layered on top of that is the challenge for these priests and the persecuted population to maintain unwavering faith with no sign or manifestation from their deity; only silence. Where some films use cinematic technique to manipulate audiences, Silence simply lays down a narrative and lets the viewer draw meaning. Faith is cruel and unexplained, as is humanity, and it’s up to the audience to find some sort of answer or at the very least closure from that.

Ultimately though this is the story of one man’s crisis of faith. Garfield’s Rodrigues takes centre stage for the vast majority of the film and suffers immensely at the hands of a people trying to protect their dynasty from what they see as a spiritual pollutant. Rodrigues is torn between his search for answers in regards to Father Ferreira, a desire to peacefully serve the oppressed Christian Japanese, and personal spiritual uncertainties that have been brooding throughout his Mission. This is Andrew Garfield’s best performance to date, brimming with compassion, suffering and spiritual rumination. Driver is similarly fantastic, although as with Neeson his time on screen is limited compared to Garfield. Some of the best depictions come from the hugely talented Japanese cast. Yoshi Oida as the Elder of Tomogi, Shin'ya Tsukamoto - one of the oppressed villagers, and Issei Ogata as the horrific yet somehow serene Inquisitor are all superb in their roles.

Silence is an extremely rare example of elemental filmmaking that will have hugely varied effects on audience. It will enlighten some, bore others and destroy many. It trusts so deeply in its own material and the themes buried beneath that it’s willing to leave audiences with questions unanswered, perhaps to dig deeper if they can find themselves ever watching it again. It may not have the mainstream appeal of Wolf of Wall Street, but Silence is nevertheless, a masterpiece.

Hacksaw Ridge

Hacksaw Ridge has a lot riding on it. It marks the return of controversial filmmaker Mel Gibson to directing, it’s a story that many have tried to put on the big screen for decades, it’s been receiving rave early reviews, and its strategically poised at the start of Oscars season.

Desmond Ross (Andrew Garfield) is a devout Seventh-day Adventist, which prevents him from harming another being and renders him a conscientious objector. He and his brother Hal (Nathaniel Buzolic) live with their mother Bertha (Rachel Griffiths) and their father Tom (Hugo Weaving), who is an alcoholic clearly suffering from his time in the First World War. After helping a man who’d be pinned under a car get medical treatment, Desmond meets Dorothy Schutte (Teresa Palmer), a nurse that he’s instantly smitten with. After Hal enlists in the army against the wishes of their father, Desmond decides that he also should enlist, intending to serve as a field medic that would never have to touch a gun. However, things don’t work that smoothly in the army, and Desmond encounters opposition to his beliefs at all levels of the military, fighting his own battle before he’s even given permission to serve his part in the war.

For all the hype and opinion around Hacksaw Ridge, perhaps it's best to first address its issues. For a start, there’s an abundance of slow-motion work all throughout, which can come off as pretty heavy-handed stylism. There’s also several moments of surprisingly poor CGI, particularly the explosions and even with things as simple as background compositing. It’s worth noting that the film had significant production challenges, being independently produced by several companies, but in this day and age that’s no excuse for sub-par technical qualms. Though by far the biggest weakness of Hacksaw Ridge is its first act, where it takes us to his childhood, then explains his family situation, explores his enlistment challenges and religious views, all whilst mixing in this extremely ‘classical Hollywood’ love story. It becomes overwhelming and feels like we’re about to watch another ‘this-is-your-life’ rushed Oscars-season biopic. But then everything changes when we’re dumped into the main act; arriving at Hacksaw Ridge, and the contrast between this hour-long cliched opener and the horror that’s about to unfold couldn’t be greater.

The first battle sequence hits you like a brick wall, just as the Saving Private Ryan opener did eighteen years ago - only this time there’s no refuge from nearly an hour of horrific, unbelievably gory action. There’s been a lot of talk about this film glorifying violence, and whilst Gibson might be overly ambitious with his slow-motion coverage and CGI fireballs, anybody that could consider what unfolds as ‘glorious’ needs to have their head checked. This main body of the film is incredibly visceral, it’s where Hacksaw Ridge finally comes together and decimates you with some of the most intense war-scenes ever put to the screen. Subtlety is not a word that should ever be associated with this film but the battle sequences are damn effective.

However, Hacksaw Ridge doesn’t exactly break new ground for the war film genre, in fact it fits in closer with the massive Hollywood war-romance classics of yesteryear than it does to almost any equivalent modern war film. In that regard, Teresa Palmer’s performance feels a bit like a really toned-down Scarlett O’Hara and Rachel Griffiths epitomises the grieving mother who’s family has been torn apart by war. Andrew Garfield is superb in the leading role, and brings gently-voiced compassion to Desmond.

Luke Bracey plays the typical douche-bag semi-antagonist that typically roams the barracks of these sorts of films, but at least it’s a whole lot better than his role in the Point Break remake. Sam Worthington is pretty dry as Captain Glover but he doesn’t receive much screen time, whereas Vince Vaughn makes the most of his role as the stern Sergeant Howell, weaving in just the right amount of humour to what is his most serious performance to date. Hugo Weaving was by far the standout of the film, and whilst he’s only really on-screen in the opening act, his performance as the clearly conflicted, demoralised alcoholic father is up there with some of his extremely difficult to beat previous roles. It was also hilarious to have good ol’ Richard Roxburgh appear briefly as a psychiatrist, trying to hide all the charisma and charm that he has behind a questionable moustache. I see you there Roxburgh...

Hacksaw Ridge might not be fully deserving of the incredible praise it’s receiving - particularly due to a handful of technical issues/stylistic choices and a dreary opening act - but the performances, incredible battle sequences and the heroics of Desmond T. Doss all make this well worth a viewing.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I am still undecided in my feelings toward the newest iteration of the Spider-Man film franchise. He is my favourite superhero and I grew up with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films. I loved those movies as a teenager because they had all the things a Spider-Man film needed. When the first of these new films came out, I was very reluctant to see it because I didn't know what they could change from before. I watched that film a week ago, so that I could understand the new angle that was being put forth and I wasn't blown away or disappointed by the film but I understood the new direction. That way was toward the comics on which it was based.

Of course there are a lot of things that has been created for the films, but the character of Peter Parker is much more like in the comics. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) trash talks the perps he is chasing. He is fun and bubbly when he is in the suit and moody when he isn't. One aspect that Garfield doesn't really portray is the nerdiness that comes with Peter Parker, a trait that Maguire had down-pat.

In this film Peter's relationship with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is pushed to the limit, as Spidey promised her dying father that he wouldn't let any harm come to her. That is a one of the big themes in this film; Peter's relationships with all the other characters, whether as Peter or Spider-Man.

Of course this film also has some action in it, with some new villains as well as a new twist on an old favourite. First up is Jamie Foxx as Electro, a former Oscorp employee who gains electrical powers after an accident involving some electric eels. His genesis was very reminiscent of one of the Batman movies of the 90s, the villains were always falling in toxic chemicals back then. I feel as though Foxx wasn't able to flex his acting prowess in this film, rather just shouting through every scene.

I was also disappointed with the inclusion of Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich or The Rhino. He appears only briefly in the film at both the beginning and the end and is underused completely, especially having such a fantastic actor as Giamatti playing him. My only hope is that he makes another appearance in the next film.

James Franco did such an amazing job as Harry Osborn and was such a good character in all three films, so I was understandably shocked with Dane DeHaan's amazing portrayal of the character. Harry is dying of a rare genetic disease which he inherited from his father Norman (Chris Cooper) and believes that Spider-Man's blood will save him. This is where the plot gets too convoluted for me. (Also quick side note before I go on, who thought it was a good idea to cast Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Willem Dafoe is the only person who should ever play that character).

Now, the convoluted plot elements come from including Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents, in this film. (Also isn't Richard Parker a tiger, or did Spidey's dad come first?) I understand putting them in the first film to make sense of Peter's relationship with The Lizard, but in this one it really just slows down the pace. There is one scene between Peter and Aunt May where bringing up his parents is needed, but that's it.

Verdict: I am still unsure what the point of having this new series of films is or what it's leading to, but these need to get a little better in the story department. We needed to see more of the Green Goblin and Rhino in their suits.