The Danish Girl

Tom Hooper has had a great run in recent years with The Kings Speech and Les Misérables. Ridley Scott jokingly described his films as ‘high brow’ in a recent director’s roundtable, and Hooper’s latest film The Danish Girl certainly touches on subject-matter that requires finesse. 

Set in 1920’s Copenhagen, an artistic couple Gerda Wegener (Alicia Vikander) and Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne) are achieving different levels of success. Einar’s landscapes are well-appreciated but the same can’t be said for Gerda’s portraits. Gerda tries to change that with a portrait of a ballet dancer (one of their friends), but when the model is late to show, Gerda asks Einar to stand in. Posing in tights and ballet shoes, the couple uncover Einar’s female alter-ego, Lili but the situation becomes challenging when Einar finds that Lili is closer to his real self than he first imagined. 

The Danish Girl definitely has its issues. For one, if you know the basic story of Lili Elbe then you basically know the movie, although reading up on her afterwards, it’s clear there are some details that have been changed. It would also be unfair of me to pick on its lack of dramatic intrigue, as that’s more of an issue that keeps cropping up in the format of these straightforward biopics, nonetheless even for somebody going in blind, it’s very clear where the story is taking you. Although it strides its two hour run-time with ease, The Danish Girl also has some jarring pacing problems, particularly when Lili undergoes her various sex-reassignment surgeries and time skips around with a lack of clarity. It’s unlikely that you’ll get bored at any point but the timing issues do stand out like a sore-thumb. 

Where The Danish Girl does succeed is in building its characters. Hooper manages to pack in a lot whilst also covering a huge array of content, thanks to actors that make the most of their performances. Alicia Vikander is mostly great as Gerda, although doesn’t trump her performance in Ex Machina - not that that’s a fair comparison of characters - and at points she seems to only be drawing on binary emotional states of jealous anger and guilt-ridden sadness. Eddie Redmayne once again provides a chameleonic performance - perhaps even equal to his bout as Hawking - and through his transformation, justifies the use of a non-trans actor. Although I guess we’ll never really know how well a transgender actor could have handled the character. 

The construction of the film, from score, to cinematography, to editing is very similar to a lot of the ‘straightforward biopics’ we’ve seen in recent years such as The Theory of Everything and Imitation Game, which makes it difficult to set each one’s aesthetics apart from others. However The Danish Girl does construct interesting and varied examples of mise en-scène, particularly the Copenhagen exteriors. Like Carol, The Danish Girl forms its 1920s era with subtlety - not shoving objects, people and events into the story as a glorified timestamp - however certain elements like the at times drab colour palette and their empty apartments creates a gloomy atmosphere which doesn’t necessarily match the overall tone of the film.

The Danish Girl is well acted - especially by Redmayne once again - and packs a lot of story-telling into two hours, albeit with a sometimes staggered pace. The narrative is always interesting, but it’s never unanticipated, and you can’t shake the feeling that the film is big-noting itself as much more influential than it ultimately is.

In the Heart of the Sea

Herman Merville’s novel Moby Dick has an interesting film history, with the last notable adaptation of the epic being the 1976 John Huston film with Gregory Peck – Unless you count Moby Dick: 2010. Now the disaster-master Ron Howard has had a crack at it with In the Heart of the Sea – which tells the story of the sinking of the whale-ship Essex, which was one of the inspirations for the novel.

In the early 19th century, whale-oil is in hot demand, used to fuel the lights and industry of the era. Nantucket, Massachusetts is one of the centres of whale-oil production and one of its most profitable ships, The Essex has just been restored and ready to go out hunting. Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) is an experienced first mate who is due to be given his first command, but is disheartened to find out that he is only being offered his usual position because a Captain George Pollard, Jr (Benjamin Walker) has been assigned to the Essex. Pollard is part of a long-line of naval royalty and Chase feels that he is not experienced enough to command the vessel. Their relationship is off to a rocky start. 

After a series of unsuccessful months out at sea, the Essex crew is getting weary, but know they can’t return until they’ve “filled their belly” with oil. After a visit to South America, the crew learn of a mythic field of whales as far as the eye can see, so they set sail in the hope that they can finally bring their journey to an end. Although they also hear of a ‘monster’ whale that lurks in those fields, capable of sinking an entire ship. 

This is a fast-paced film overall and is split up into several distinct sections. The close-up action shots and detailed edits build a sense of tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat, however at times this works against the plot and makes it difficult to understand what’s happening. As Nickerson says, the story of the Essex is about two men, Own Chase and Captain George Pollard, Jr. and really the plot focuses on how their relationship evolves over the course of the disaster. Their polarizing backgrounds and lifestyles play out the classic class-war tale but ultimately this is a simple story about men trying to survive at sea whilst a ‘monster’ whale hunts them down. 

With the flourish of recent films that see characters surviving at sea (Life of Pi and Unbroken notably), we’ve seen a lot of CGI development put toward the ocean. Considering this is a major Hollywood release and that Howard made significant use of CGI in Apollo 13, it’s surprising that the sea and background landscapes sometimes can’t hold up to the level set by recent films. The scenes set in thriving 19th century Nantucket in particular, struggle to convey the complexity of the surroundings. 

Chris Hemsworth and Ben Whishaw both give admirable performances, although their accents don’t quite hold up throughout. Brendan Gleeson has a similar problem, although in his few short scenes he manages to out-act the rest of the cast. Cillian Murphy is sadly underused and Benjamin Walker’s character development feels slightly forced, although Waller is certainly one of the more interesting characters to see evolve as the situation unfolds. A stand-out for me was Tom Holland as the young Thomas Nickerson, who captures the conflicting fear and excitement with surprising finesse.

In the Heart of the Sea is a solid action film that keeps you interested throughout. Its skillful composition and editing construct a compelling story, however its occasionally confusing direction and questionable acting decisions hold the film back.

Jack's Thoughts - Spectre

I am not going to lie about how much of a shameless James Bond fan I am. Well at least I used to be, until this latest installment Spectre absolutely killed any enjoyment I once had of the classic series of films. Now while not every film has been great, this Daniel Craig film has hit a new low, with more attention paid to fan service than actually trying to make a good movie.

Bond starts out in Mexico, investigating an Italian crime boss who he was directed to by the former M (Judi Dench) in a video message she recorded before her death. This leads him on a journey to uncover a secretive criminal executive named SPECTRE, led by his older foster brother Franz Oberhauser (Cristoph Waltz). Meanwhile, the current M (Ralph Fiennes) is facing pressure from a committee set up by C (Andrew Scott) which is proposing a new surveillance program that would make the 00 Section redundant.

I think what has hurt the last couple of Bond movies the most is this need to make them a continuation of the films that came before. The end of Skyfall seemed so clear cut as though EON Productions were saying that we're going to start afresh and give you a new standalone adventure. But that isn't the case at all. So much assumed knowledge is needed from the previous films it's laughable. Gone are the days of simply enjoying a wacky adventure with a man in a tuxedo. Now you actually have to work when you watch this movie. Top that off with a shitty plot that had me squirming with discomfort and a final revelation that was so obvious that I was actually saying the dialogue in synchronisation with the characters.

I was shocked to learn that this film cost $350 million dollars, but then again I can see where it all went. Maybe spending millions on 10 exclusive Aston Martin cars that will never be available to the public, one of which you destroy completely is not such a great idea. Or maybe spending a lot more on an explosion that will get you into the Guiness Book of Records and not at all add to the enjoyment of your film is an equally bad idea. There is way too much action in this movie. I understand that it's trying to say something about mass surveillance, but I feel as though it's coming a little late to the party.

The film is lacking lots of things, but one I noticed above all else was the lack of sauveness. Bond is a partygoer and the definition of cool, but none of his actions in the movie indicate that. I mean you can still wear a suit and not do cool things, just look at Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx (full disclosure, his fight with Bond on a train was probably the only thing I liked about this film.

I was confused with the choice of cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema to make the colour palatte of this film a dull brown. His previous work on films like Her and Interstellar had been so vibrant, but here it matched Daniel Craig's enthusiasm to play Bond. And speaking of that, he just brought the whole movie down. Toward the end I was hoping that they'd just kill him and put us all out of our misery.

Look how much he hates your enjoyment

Look I'm going to go so far as to say I hated this movie and it's the worse Bond film since Die Another Day. In fact it's much worse. I can at least sit through that film.

Spectre

In the beautiful secrecy of Rome at night James Bond arrives at a secret meeting. Uninvited he smirks his way past the guards in Craig's now signature brutish fashion. As he arrives in the upper gallery viewing deck of this clandestine conglomerate, he makes his way through the witnesses looking down at a vast hall wherein an international assortment of organised crime discusses business. The lighting is low and reflective of the power and secrecy of this event, the sound echoes in the cavernous gloom as Bond stalks silently between faces cloaked in darkness. Suddenly the arrival of a shadowy man in the meeting creates a palpable atmosphere of fear within the cavernous hall. Within minutes a man is killed and no one moves a muscles. The recent arrival. surely the head of this cabal speaks into the microphone. Bond is enamoured, captivated by this man and his power. The man makes a public address to everyone in the room but it seems he has one particular person as his intended audience. "Welcome, James. What took you so long?" The man turns and looks up into the gallery, make direct and immediate eye contact with Bond. The light captures his face, Bond knows this man.

With 2012's Skyfall director Sam Mendes furthered the modern Bond revival with it's stylish action and settings, breath-taking cinematography, retro-appeal and personal storyline. But with Spectre, all the goodwill of Skyfall seems to be slowly bleeding out of a film that too doggedly holds onto contemporary blockbuster ideas on stakes and motivation, and classic Bond nostalgia. The effect being a mixed bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of Bond. Spectre begins with a lovely but needlessly showy (seemingly) single-take shot in Mexico City during Day of the Dead with Bond on the trail of a bad guy. After the event naturally ends in a helicopter fist-fight metres above the streets of Mexico City and Bond killing his target he's left with naught but a strange silver ring whose only distinction is a black octopus engraving. It turns out Bond has gone somewhat rouge after receiving a tape from the now deceased Judy Dence M and without approval from the new M (Ralph Fiennes) goes in search of the men who sent Skyfall's villain Raoul Silva, which turns out to be the eponymous committee. Along the way Bond is surreptitiously joined by Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Q (Ben Whishaw) and Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), a woman with an mysterious link to the organisation and a prime target for them.

Spectre is a lovely film for the most part, fulfilling in all the necessary requirements for a Bond film, beautiful women, beautiful cars, seduction, varied scenery, vodka martini's. secret bases, ridiculous fun action and villains, villains, villains galore. But the whole way through the film just feels off. Motivations are lacking, plot-holes are apparent and a general sense of dualism is present, the film is never sure if it should be a throwback or re-invent the wheel and is seemingly stuck between the two points. In spite of the brilliant and armour-cracking portrayal of the aging, bitter Bond during Skyfall and the surely tragic death of M, Craig has perfected the formula for his Bond in this film. He's strong, silent, smarmy, apparently suave and frankly brutish, and in possibly the most satirical take on Bond's persona after killing an Italian bad guy in Mexico, he goes to the man's funeral, meets his wife, saves her from assassination, fucks her on the night of her husbands funeral and she is gotten by the next scene. It's enough to make even the most casual Bond fan ache for the bravery to return to a campy Bond with torturous puns.

Though the film is surely competent and interesting enough it's the bad that draws the attention after the objectively enjoyed Casino Royale and Skyfall, and (perhaps over-criticised Quantum of Solace). The reveal of Bond's connections to arch-villain Oberhauser are lazy as they are stupid (SPOILER ALERT), Oberhauser's plan is needless, and the whole thing smacks of prequel-level writing in the need to bring things to a certain point. Madeline Swann is one of the most disappointing Bond women in a good while and the romance between her an Bond is nothing short of tacky, there is absolutely no reason these people should be together whatsoever. Finally, the finale is derivative, lazy, blockbuster trash, with a few genuinely interesting moments, but hampered by senselessness and carelessness. Overall, Spectre is a hot mess, when it does well, it can be lovely, but overall it's just an unpleasant odour that lasts for two-and-a-half hours. While not bad, it's certainly a film that will become less appealing the more one applies thought and time to it.

The Lobster

Colin Farrell's moustache. Blind Rachel Weisz. A bactrian camel. If this combination of things seems like a no-brainer to you, then you will love The Lobster. This film has the tagline of "an unconventional love story" and I think this is a bit of an understatement. All I can really say in this opening paragraph is that The Lobster is more of an experience than a film.

In a dystopian future where forced encouplement is mandatory, David (Colin Farrell) is sent for a forty-five day stay at a hotel where he must find love within this time period. If he does not, he will be turned into an animal of his choosing. He is able to get more time to complete this by hunting down "loners" (single people who live in the woods) and will get an extra day for every loner captured. He becomes friends with the Lisping Man (John C. Reilly) and the Limping Man (Ben Whishaw). After a violent encounter, David flees the hotel and joins the loners, whose leader (Léa Seydoux) is suspicious of him. He soon falls in love with the Short Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz).

This is Greek director Yargos Lanthimos' first English language film and it shows. Throughout the film I was wondering whether or not the writer had a grasp of English and apparently not. This, however, does not work against the film at all. Indeed it is quite the opposite. The simple sentences that are present actually makes the dystopian future more disturbing. At the same time it also makes it very funny, especially with the demonstrations on why being single is dangerous. While we're on the subject of dystopias, this one is done really well. We are not told how this future is functioning, we only get revealed to it piece by piece for us to figure out on our own.

The film takes quite a satirical approach to current societal norms, especially that of being in a relationship. Except this takes that expectation to the extreme. A single woman is stopped and searched extensively in a shopping mall. The single people who fail to find a match get released into the wild once they are turned into animals and once in this state they are vulnerable to whatever happens to them.

I'd walk a little faster, but these pants are really tight.

Colin Farrell's straight performance makes this black comedy even funnier than it is. It already has an uneasy comedic quality to it, but once you watch David's acceptance that he must spend the first 24 hours with one hand tied behind his back, you'll be laughing. Even more when the Lisping Man's punishment for masturbating is having his hand burnt in a toaster. These oddball laughs can come out of nowhere, like when the Limping Man decides to suddenly bash his face against the wall to impress the Nosebleed Woman (Jessica Barden).

Colin Farrell is remarkable as David. His somber mood reflects the entire feel of the movie and his acceptance of the world makes you feel comfortable with the entire setting. John C. Reilly is uniquely offbeat with his Lisping Man, but not too far away from his famous character Dr. Steve Brule. Ben Whishaw's desperate performance is great. Rachel Weisz has excellent chemistry with Farrell.

The Lobster will leave you speechless once you've finished watching it. You'll be confused, you'll be amazed. One thing's for sure, you won't forget it.

Paddington

Paddington Bear is the sort of loveable children's literary character that you thought would have had a dozen movies based on by now, but apart from a few animated series, there is virtually no adaptations based on the character. In a way I am sort of happy that there hasn't because the technology to put him in a live action movie hasn't existed until now.

Paddington (Ben Whishaw), although he doesn't have a name at the beginning, is a bear who lives in darkest Peru with his Uncle Pastuzo (Michael Gambon) and Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton). He is forced to leave for London after an earthquake destroys his home and is told that he should find the explorer who met his aunt and uncle. When he gets to London, he is discovered by the Brown family; Henry (Hugh Bonneville), Mary (Sally Hawkins), Judy (Madeline Harris) and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin), who name him after the train station where they met him. Paddington comes to the attention of Millicent (Nicole Kidman), a taxidermist who thinks he would be a great addition to her collection.

This movie was a lot funnier than I expected it to be. The underlying joke throughout the whole film is that the people of London aren't at all surprised to see a talking bear amongst them is hilarious. They just acknowledge him as they go about their daily business. A lot of the humour comes from Paddington's misunderstandings of "civilised" culture; mistaking toothbrushes for ear cleaners or a fantastic joke about thinking he must have to hold a dog to ride the escalator after seeing a picture sign indicating that dogs must be held when you go on one. There is also a fantastic vintage expedition documentary about the explorer first encountering the bears as a prologue to the film.

There is some great comedy from the actors I least expected it from. I always imagine Hugh Bonneville as a stuffy master of a manor house, but as the risk averse Mr. Brown he sets up some of the funniest jokes of the film. There is also a brief shot of him riding a Triumph Bonneville, which I thought was a great little joke to put in. Sally Hawkins adds some great laughs as Mrs. Brown, but that's what I was expecting given her role in Blue Jasmine. Peter Capaldi is also hilarious although I find it extremely hard to watch him in a role where he isn't screaming obscenities at you, a la The Thick of It. Matt Lucas also has a great cameo and I wish he was in it more. The whole thing was brought down for me with the inclusion of Nicole Kidman's character. Not only was she unfunny, but her character just seemed out of place. I know we need something to happen in the film, but can't we just be content with funny misunderstandings.

Verdict: I'm not a fan of marmalade, but I do like this movie. It's a fun family film with great gags that everyone will love.

The New James Bond Movie has been announced!

Some very exciting news has just been announced. Director of Skyfall Sam Mendes made the announcement on Thursday from Pinewood Studios (the home of James Bond) that the new Bond movie will be called Spectre.

Fans of the Bond series will instantly recognise what this title alludes to. SPECTRE (standing for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was the organisation that Bond was a constant foil to in the early movies, especially the Connery years. This organisation was headed by the ever-changing and mysterious Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Before you get excited thinking that we are seeing the return of Blofeld, it has been announced also that Christoph Waltz will play the villain Oberhauser, the son of the late Hans Oberhauser, a man who acted as a father figure for Bond. This sounds like a whole bunch of misdirection to me. Remember when they said that Benedict Cumberbatch WASN'T playing Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek Into Darkness.

In addition to Waltz, the new cast members will include Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci and Andrew Scott. Returning from Skyfall are Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny and Rory Kinnear as Tanner. All more I can say is that we here at the blog are more excited than we have ever been.