Clouds of Sils Maria

Olivier Assayas is a highly intelligent filmmaker, and often draws on his roots as a critic for Cahiers du Cinéma in his highly structured stories. His latest film, Clouds of Sils Maria stars Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart.

Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche) is a successful actor, who began her career in the play Maloja Snake by Wilhelm Melchior. Enders and Melchior have a difficult past relationship and as Enders is travelling to Zurich to accept an award on his behalf, she hears the troubling news that he has passed away. Maria has a loyal assistant, Valentine (Kristen Stewart), and the two are very close; she helps Maria with the news. Soon Maria is offered a role in the latest version of the play, however she'll be playing an older woman.

This is a very French film. It revels in the revival of an artistic era that doesn't necessarily exist any more, subtly poking fun at the ways of Hollywood, superhero movies and celebrity gossip. These are starkly contrasted against the passion that the characters put into the play; in trying to understand the production's characters with long conversations detailing their various attributes. One of the key elements of Clouds of Sils Maria is the relationship between Maria and Valentine, and more specifically, how this is played on when they do the script read-throughs. These scenes are sometimes a bit tedious and difficult to follow - as the lines between the play's characters and the two women are quite blurred - but they are managed with a lot of finesse from Binoche and Stewart. There's certainly an element of art imitating life in the film; between the play, the film and also real life. However there are certain details that are not followed through, which at times can be slightly confusing. For instance, I would have liked to understand a bit more about what Maria thought of her past career. She's constantly focusing on her previous role in the play but doesn't really vocalise any of her other roles. 

Clouds of Sils Maria has a very dislocated structure, with scenes fading in and out with little to no actual transitions. It's a stylised choice and I understand the reasoning behind it but I'm not sure how effective it really is, at times it's certainly distracting. The grief that Maria feels at the playwrights passing (they had a very personal relationship) and the way that she deals with it through the reboot of the play, was one interesting element of the story that they probably could have brought out a bit more. However the subtlety in character development is certainly indicative of the intelligent writing behind Assayas's script. The mountainous backdrop almost becomes another character in Clouds of Sils Maria, it has an importance in contextualising the story and makes for some incredibly beautiful shots - particularly a time-lapse sequence where the fog rolls in - however I think they may have overindulged in the scenery just a little too much.

Clouds of Sils Maria is lead by two outstanding performances from Binoche and Stewart. Juliette Binoche is a veteran actress, and is just as talented here. She brings depth and no doubt, personal experiences to Maria, who is a much more memorable character than Dina in Words and Pictures, the last major role that I saw her in. Kristen Stewart, who many people like to mock for her seemingly expressionless delivery - I actually think she's had some great performances - really shines here. Her understated mode of acting works well for Valentine, whose calm and collected manner perfectly dichotomises Maria's emotional and vibrant personality. Maria and Valentine are two very memorable characters, an absolute requirement for this complex story to work.

Clouds of Sils Maria is a well-written and intelligent movie, with plenty of inspiration from French New Wave films. The palatable story is sometimes difficult to follow and won't necessarily please everybody, but the two leading ladies sustain the interest throughout. However I do feel like it's been written for critics, and I don't know how I feel about that narrowing down of audience.

Words and Pictures

The latest film from Australian director Fred Schepisi, Words and Pictures follows English teacher Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) and Art teacher Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche), two opposites that argue over which is superior, words or pictures.

Dina is a new teacher at the school, whose bitter attitude clashes with the arrogant, egotistical Jack. They each suffer their own problems in life. Jack is an alcoholic that is on the brink of being fired and Dina has a disability that makes her incapable of painting the same masterpieces that she used to. Rallying the support of their students, the two create a battle of words vs pictures that is to culminate in a final showdown. 

The film has a few amusing moments, and the performances from both Owen and Binoche are really quite strong, but the characters themselves cause some issues for me which I think root back to an underdeveloped screenplay.

The issue with this film stems from the characters, specifically as they are presented in the first half. I understand the desire to portray a flawed character but we see nothing but their flaws in the first half. Jack is conveyed as just too much of an arrogant alcoholic and Dina as the angry artist troubled by her arthritis. We don't see the other elements that compose their psyches and hence they seem to lack depth. There is no chance for empathy from the audience as we just cannot help but dislike them. So when we start to see their other side, it's no longer believable and the rather touching new elements in the plot that build up a much stronger second-half, prove to be too little too late. The emotional power just cannot present itself honestly.

There's an underlying push towards the concept of the words and the pictures merging together but it's not subtle enough. The plot continuously attempts to inspire the viewer to explore the beauty of both words and pictures, which don't get me wrong, is a worthy cause, but the concept takes precedent over the development of Jack and Dina. It feels like it should be more of a character driven movie which utilises strong, multi-dimensional lead roles to weave it's intended message.

What we get is a film that attempts to be another Dead Poets Society (which it plays homage to with the Walt Whitman references), when it really should have found it's own voice through what is quite a strong premise that is delivered in a pretentious manner. This could have been so much more.

Godzilla

I have known about Godzilla my whole life. Even before 1998's Godzilla came out, I knew of this massive beast that went about causing destruction and chaos in Japan. I even have some of the Japanese films on DVD, so I understand the excitement and strange hero status surrounding the creature. Needless to say I was skeptical about a new American version of the character.

It wasn't until I saw some of the creature design pictures of how Godzilla would look in this movie that my confidence was restored. It was going to be the same as the old Japanese films I used to watch as a kid. In fact in watching the movie, it's amazing to see that they went one step further and somehow made the monster look like a guy in suit.

I was a bit disappointed however that as soon as the monster arrived on the scene, the human story that they had built up in the first thirty minutes of the movie, was thrown to the wayside. In the older films they still maintained the human character's, well, character.

And there are some truly talented actors in this film. Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston is really good at playing a hysterical character and David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum), one of my favourite actors, plays a badass US Navy Admiral. On the other hand I felt as though they underused Elizabeth Olsen, who is a really talented actress.

Verdict: A proper anglicised version of a fantastic franchise. At many times the audience was cheering for Godzilla.