REVIEW: The Master (2012) March 18, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
Tags: Amy Adams, Joaquin Phoenix, L. Ron Hubbard, Paul Thomas Anderson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, scientology
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
Hollywood is often described as “dream factory” and, therefore, it is understood that its main business is selling fiction instead of truth. So, when Hollywood filmmakers have to choose between telling history and telling fiction, they often opt for the latter, mostly because facts tend to be too boring and not attractive enough for audience. In some rare instances, however, fiction wins over history not because of filmmakers’ artistic or commercial consideration, but because facts, when properly presented, might step on the toes of some vengeful and powerful individuals or organisations. Even some of the greatest filmmakers had to take those things into account. Citizen Kane, the world’s most famous film à clef, is the best know example of such practice. In more recent years, such films are rarity, mostly because Hollywood filmmakers these days tend not to pick unnecessary fights and when they actually do, they are very careful not to admit it openly. One of such examples could be found in The Master, 2012 film directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
Plot begins at the end of World War, when US Navy sailor Freddie Quell, played by Joaquin Phoenix, has to face serious adjusting to civilian life. Psychological traumas suffered during the war and before it, however, make such adjustment very difficult and Freddie often indulges in self-destructive behaviour and alcohol, the latter provided by moonshine made by his own personal recipe. After losing a job and causing the death of a man who tasted his product Freddie runs to San Francisco and finds a shelter on yacht. When he wakes up, it turns out that the yacht is owned by Lancaster Dodd (played by Philip Seymour Hoffmann), eccentric self-proclaimed philosopher and founder a movement called “Cause”. Dodd is thrilled with Freddie’s moonshine, but even more fascinated by his character and sees him as a perfect guinea pig to test his bold theories and bizarre psychological procedures called “Processing”. Quell joins the “Cause” and becomes Dodd’s most enthusiastic supporter. Dodd’s other followers, most notably his wife Peggy (played by Amy Adams), are increasingly troubled by his presence, mostly because his continuing driking and propensity for unnecessary violence compromises the movement and their founder’s teaching.
Before and during the production a lot of free publicity for The Master was created by speculations that the film was a biopic dedicated to L. Ron Hubbard, founder of controversial Church of Scientology. A Hollywood film was, however, unlikely to deal with that subject directly, mainly because many of important Hollywood personalities (including some of Anderson’s close friends) were Scientologists, and the Church of Scientology was not known for not taking criticism kindly. So, Anderson was forced to deal with such hot potato indirectly; first by creating fictious versions of Hubbard and Scientology under different names and then by portraying the early years of Scientology from the perspective of an outsider.
Another set of speculations dealt with this film being a potential favourite for Academy Awards, especially in acting categories. The Master featured two very strong roles played by two very talented artists. Phoenix, who built his reputaion by playing troubled and often unlikeable characters is working very hard with Freddie, creating a very convincing and at times disturbing portrayal of alcoholic and sex-obsessed sociopath whose wartime traumas might be just a convenient cover for some much deeper issues. Hoffmann is, however, much more sympathetic but also very impressive as a person whose intellectual and other achievements don’t much his claims but who nevertheless compensates such gap with great deal of charm and charisma.
Two great acting performances, however, can’t compensate for the serious script deficiencies and Anderson’s apparent loss of focus. The plot is simply too slow and loses much of its focus in the second half when Freddie’s presence in the organisation leads to inevitable conflict which is resolved in a way which is both banal and confusing. Even more confusing is the actual ending in which Freddie has to finally face the fact that he and Dodd would have to go separate ways. Anderson wrote and directed those scenes in such a way that it is unclear whether they are actual events or Freddie’s dream. By that time anyone, apart from Anderson’s most die hard fans would stop caring and would probably appreciate film being over. The Master in the end didn’t need damaging controversies or some behind-the-scene Scientologist conspiracy to fail in getting awards and become a big disappointment.
REVIEW: The Iceman (2012) March 7, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
Tags: Ariel Vromen, Chris Evans, Michael Shannon, Ray Liotta, Richard Kuklinski, Winona Ryder
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
True crime can provide filmmakers with fascinating stories and characters yet it can also create some difficult challenges. All too often criminals and their deeds look so banal or ordinary that scriptwriters often feel the need to spice them up and make them more “Hollywood”. In other instances real life crime might look worse than the most perverted and least plausible fiction, so filmmakers go in the opposite direction and try to make it more “normal”. One such example could be found in The Iceman, 2012 true crime biopic directed by Ariel Vromen.
While America had its more than fair share of notorious killers, in terms of quantity few matched Richard Kuklinski (1935 – 2006). In a span of few decades, accoridng to his own testimony, he murdered between 100 and 250 people, most of them as an assassin working for Mafia families in New York and New Jersey. What made Kuklinski’s story extraordinary was his double life of a dedicated family man, with wife and daughters blissfully unaware of his murderous career until the last moments. After a brief prologue in which Kuklinski (played by Michael Shannon) gives interview in prison (recreating 1993 HBO documentary Conversation with a Killer) plot begins in 1961 with Kuklinski as quiet young man on a date with his future wife Deborah (played by Winona Ryder). He tells that he works in Disney studios, while in reality, he deals in illegal pornography. This kind of activity brings unwanted attention of local mob boss Roy De Meo (played by Ray Liotta) who is nevertheless impressed by Kuklinski’s calmness during intimidation. Kuklinski passes a test during which he kills a homeless man, gets hired as a hitman and thus begins long and lucrative career during which he would partner with another killer Robert Pronge (played by Chris Evans). Two of them develop a new methods of disposing bodies, including freezing victims designed to prevent police from establishing proper time of death.
The Iceman is made with relatively small budget, but it doesn’t show on screen. Vromen was very skillfull in recreating past decades with limited resources, although most of the plot is set at night, in seedy poll halls and bars and decayed urban landscape. The general tone of the film is very grim and lightens up only in scenes featuring Kuklinski’s family, although only until his professional life starts to affect his family life with predictably destructive and frightening results. The acting is very good, especially with otherwise well-known or leading actors in short but impressive roles. That incldues Stephen Dorff as Kuklinski’s brother who ended in jail because of his own vicious crime, James Franco as sleazy photographer and almost unrecognisable Evans as long-haired, bespectacled and utterly cynical killer. Shannon delivers his acting goods, but it could be argued that he wasn’t the best choice for the role of Kuklinski. He has already built reputation by playing sinister, disturbed and murderous characters and another disturbed killer, even with such impressive bodycount as Kuklinski’s, doesn’t bring anything new.
The way Vromen portrays the kiler’s decades-long career also leaves something to be desired. Script often fails to establish why certain characters get killed and due to dark cinematography it is sometimes difficult to tell them apart. The character of Kuklinski is too complex for filmmakers and they fail to explore its different dimensions, so there are at least three various protagonists Shannon plays – cold professional, loving family man and dangerous paranoid. The Iceman often fails to make the connection between the three, and some of the details – like Kuklinski’s self-established rule of never killing women and children – are never properly explored. Perhaps this is the story not well-fit for a medium of feature film. A documentary (which were already made) of television miniseries could have been much better.
REVIEW: Nightcrawler (2014) March 2, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
Tags: Bill Paxton, Dan Gilroy, Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
Even before Spotlight got its Academy Award, it was hailed as one of the rare truly great films about great journalism. One of the reasons why such films are rare could be found in the fact that great journalism is rare. Like in many other activities, journalism seldom ascends to fit noble professional ideals. So, instead of informing public and making the world a better place, it is more common for modern media to distort the public perception of reality. Therefore, media is more often part of the problem instead of being part of solution. The discrepancy between journalism as it should be and journalism as it is sometimes may become frightening. Probably the most explicit and one of the more disturbing portrayals of such discrepancy might be found in Nightcrawler, thriller directed by Dan Gilroy.
Protagonist of the film is Louis “Lou” Bloom (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), ambitious but unemployed young man who makes a living on the streets of Los Angeles through petty crime. His attempts to find permanent and legitimate employment fail until he becomes a witness to a spectacular traffic accident. At the scene he meets Joe Loder (played by Bill Paxton), freelance videographer who sells dramatic footage of accidents and crimes to local television stations. That gives idea to Bloom and he buys a camcorder and police scanner and starts stalking the streets at night in search of graphic images of violence and destruction. Bloom’s lack of experience is quickly compensated by his perseverance, dedication and complete lack of scruples. He starts partnership with Nina Romina (played by Rene Russo), middle-aged news director of a struggling television station and provides her with spectacular and graphic footage that raise the ratings. Bloom obtains new equipment, an assistant (played by Riz Ahmed) and something resembling a career, but his endless search for new and even more sensationalist footage leads him to cross the thin line between being a witness and being a participant of urban mayhem.
Nightcrawler represents something of a true rarity in contemporary Hollywood. Dan Gilroy’s script actually tells a truth that looks like a heresy compared to what almost all other American films and TV shows present. The crime in America is actually in decline. Yet, based on what news industry (just like Hollywood) tell, it is an apocalyptic crisis and it is covered at the expense of more pressing matters like pollution, political corruption or bad economy. The old adage “If it bleeds, it leads” is not only mentioned in the film, it is even more explicitly expressed when Nina’sets priorities for her new partner. Nightcrawler also deals with other social aspects of such phenomenon, also by explicitly explaining that the crime stories get more attention when the victims are white or middle/upper class instead belonging to the poor or/and minorities.
However, deeper issues in Nightcrawler are in many ways overshadowed by its conventional genre structure. Gilroy as a director proves very capable in his directorial debut. Almost entire plot is set during the night and Los Angeles is portrayed both as an visually attractive city of dreams and neo-noirish urban jungle. This is especially evident in a gruesome and disturbing crime scene set in an house belonging to affluent neighbourhood. Even more impressive is Jake Gyllenhal in a role that amounts to the most frightening and despicable character of his career. Bloom is portrayed as a sociopath, a man lacking any sort of compassion, scruples and moral, yet endowed with intelligence, perseverance and something that could be described as professionalism. His quest for fame and fortune through other people’s misery is presented as a more extreme form of an American dream, and the unconventional (although not exactly unpredictable) ending serves as an ironic illustration of an idea that in America literally everyone has a chance to succeed.
Gyllenhaal’s character, on the other hand, also represents a major flaw of Nightcrawler. Gilroy’s script tells a sad tale of contemporary media and society from a perspective of rather unusual character. Bloom is presented as a young man lacking formal education and who starts at the fringes of society. The film would have been more effective with Bloom being or, at last, starting like a “normal” character very much like Walter White in Breaking Bad. It could have been much more effective with protagonist beginning its path as someone with journalism degree and with unemployment in modern media industry adding another layer to the plot. However, even with such opportunity squandered, Nightcrawler still represents one of rare Hollywood film that tells some disturbing truths about world and its general perception.
REVIEW: Foxcatcher (2014) February 29, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
Tags: Bennett Miller, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
Wrestling is one of the most ancient, and, arguably, one of the the most basic sports. Its simplicity might explain why it doesn’t seem to be well-suited for modern concept of sports entertainment and why its eventual success can’t be imagined without some sort of artificial spectacle like North American pro wrestling. Wrestling in its basic and “pure” form, which could be found among serious Olympic athletes, seldom attracts Hollywood filmmakers. When it does, it is usually due to connections to some bizarre true life stories, like the one that inspired creators of Foxcatcher, 2014 drama directed by Bennett Miller.
Plot begins in 1987 when the viewers are introduced to Mark Schultz (played by Channing Tatum), talented wrestler who three years ago won gold medal at the Los Angeles Olympics. Despite that and despite the support of his older and equally successful brother Dave (played by Mark Ruffalo), Mark experiences difficulties in training and doesn’t prepare well enough for eventual appearance at next year’s Seoul Olympics. Unexpected solution for those issues comes in the form of John E. du Pont (played by Steve Carell), heir of du Ponts, one of the oldest, richest and most influential families in America. He invites Mark to his Foxcatcher estate in Pennsylvania where he would train together with other wrestlers. Mark is at first impressed with John’s generosity and gradually develops friendship with his benefactor; Dave, on the other hand, declines invitation to Foxcacther, prefering to spend time with his wife and children. As the deadline for Olympics draw near, Mark begins to see some disturbing details in John’s behaviour, including incidents of unprovoked verbal and physical violence and cocaine use. While Mark begins to distance from John and contemplate leaving, Dave finally relents and comes to Foxcatcher, thus paving the way for unexpected tragedy.
Foxcather, at least on first glance, looks very much like many of those end-of-the-year films designed to impress AMPAS voters with great acting performances. The most impressive of such performances is given by Carrell, an actor who became star by playing comedic roles. His portrayal of John du Pont is something quite different; helped by impressive make-up and prosthetic nose that make him almost unrecognisable, he delivers a chilling and menacing portrait of a character made out of hypocrisy, arrogance and bullishness. Carell plays probably the least likeable, but also one of the greatest characters of his career. Tatum, who often has to deal with thankless, is here given a material more suitable for his talent. Mark Schultz is quiet, emotionless and, at the beginning, rather naive young man who seems almost destined to become a victim; when he begins to notice that everything is not all right and that he should actually do something about it, the change is portrayed gradually and convincingly. Ruffalo is also very good as his older, more experienced and sincerelly well-intentioned brother.
Script by E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman should be praised for developing plot slowly and allowing viewers to make their own conclusions about characters. This subtle approach prevented them from offering simplest, but dramatically unsatisfying explanation of John’s actions in form of repressed homosexuality. Foxcatcher doesn’t go that route (that would burden the film with unnecessary cliches) and instead leaves the nature of John’s true feelings towards wrestlers both ambiguous, painting the picture of much more complex causes of psychopathy. Part of it is in the glorious past of John’s family and high standards he could never hope to achieve, and part is the troubled relationship with old mother (played by Vanessa Redgrave) who appeared to love her horses more than her son.
Foxcatcher, on the other hand, fails to put its plot and character in broader socio-political context. There are some hints of Reagan’s 1980s America being a bleak place dominated by greed, corruption and hypocrisy of those who would later be known as “1%”. Motive of Cold War as patriotic justification for morally or otherwise questionable practices is not properly used. And, finally, the shocking, violent ending actually happens year after the other events portrayed in the film; the connection between such finale and actual plot is almost non-existent. Foxcatcher might feature some impressive acting, but it nevertheless looks unfinished.
REVIEW: You Carry Me (2015) January 26, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
add a comment
YOU CARRY ME
(TI MENE NOSIŠ)
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
Critics didn’t like Narodni heroj Ljiljan Vidić, comedy that is supposed to be something of a hit in Croatian cinemas. I guess that Croatian filmmakers don’t like either. The main reason, however, would have less to do film’s quality and more with its genre, making it a one among few Croatian films you could enjoy watching together with late-night pizza, beer and non-cinephile friends. Those kinds of films, regardless of their quality, are among the least likely to get funding from Croatian Audiovisual Center, govermnent agency whose officials tend to prefer films that are supposed to do well at festivals and the arthouse circuit – menacingly serious heavy dramas about characters or situations you are lucky to watch on screen instead in real life. Most of such films are ignored by Croatian public, with humiliatingly low box-officers numbers often justified by generally poor quality of filmmaking. From time to time, however, some of those titles employ enough talent to justify every bit of taxpayers’ money invested and in some, even rarer, cases, a film might turn out to be something quite remarkable. You Carry Me, feature debut of Ivona Juka, is one of such films.
Plot is made out of three stories about three women in contemporary Zagreb. The youngest of them is Dora (played by Helena Beljan), young androgynous girl who dreams about becoming soccer manager when she grows up and takes Zdravko Mamić, controversial manager of Dinamo Zagreb club, as her role model. Her father (played by Goran Hajduković) is Vedran, small-time drug dealer who spent previous few years away from his children and wife Lidija (played by Nataša Janjić) and now tries to make a new start by being good parent and honest citizen, with predictably unsuccessful results. Lidija works as a makeup artist for the television soap opera which is directed by Ives (Lana Barić), dedicated professional who fights a losing battle for sanity while trying to take care of her loving but increasingly demented old father (played by Voja Brajović). Nataša (played by Nataša Dorčić) is a middle-aged producer of the soap opera whose career brought material success, but who nevertheless has to deal with some unpleasant issues like pregnancy, husband’s infidelity, serious illness and traumas from distant past.
Some of the reviewers compared Juka’s film with Alejandro Iñárritu’s films like Amores perros and 21 Grams or Paul Haggis’ Crash. The most obvious reason for that is structure. The similarities between You Carry Me and those films, however, end there. Juka’s film is not only original work, but it is confidently and uncompromisingly set in Croatian present. Unlike many of her colleagues she simply refuses to deal with Croatian past, whether she sees it idyllic or traumatic. Although all three stories are personal, she doesn’t shy away from bigger picture, which is far from flattering – impoverished citizens at the mercy of all-powerful banks run by heartless managers, inability of an average person to have a decent life with average salaries, petty and sometimes not even petty crime as the only way to get ahead and ever-present corruption that touches every aspect of society, including national politics. The general picture might be bleak, but it is nevertheless impressive, due to talents of cinematographer Mario Oljača, who perfectly captured snow-covered streets of Zagreb. Italian composer Teho Teardo also provides an important and effective ingredient to the general atmosphere.
Juka’s greatest asset could be found in actors. She had some experienced people at her disposal, namely Nataša Dorčić who bravely deals with potentially thankless role of a pregnant middle-aged woman. Some of the talents she found outside of Croatia, namely in great Serbian actor Voja Brajović and Slovenian actor Sebastian Cavazza who is very good in role of Nataša’s husband. Some of the actors are pure revelation. Helena Beljan is effective as a little girl who is both fascinating and also, at times, frightening and who wouldn’t have to worry about acting career if Croatian cinema industry hadn’t got bias against horror genre. Another acting revelation is Gordan “Čupko” Hajduković, former leader of Dinamo Zagreb fans who used to end up behind bars for various violent offences. He apparently lacks of acting experiences, but he compensating that by adding great deal of authenticity to the character and some of the scenes where he appears are the most powerful.
Some of that authenticity, however, might hurt the film, at least among the more squeamish segments of the audience. Juka doesn’t shy away from portraying graphic or disturbing scenes, whether it is violence, drug use (some of which involve little Dora) or sex. The bigger problem, however, seems to be the lack of tempo. With more than two and half hours, You Carry Me is a little bit overlong and sometimes it gives away an author too fond of her work to give it a proper editing. Ivona Juka, however, even then shows a great talent and when those two and half hours pass, the audience is left with a powerful film with impact that dwarves commercially successful yet easily forgettable Croatian films.
REVIEW: Narodni heroj Ljiljan Vidić (2015) January 20, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
add a comment
NARODNI HEROJ LJILJAN VIDIĆ
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
If British author L.P. Hartley had lived in today’s Croatia he wouldn’t have said that the past was a foreign country. Instead he would describe the past as the colonial overlord. While there are various parts of the world where the past, often very distant, has a commanding hold over peoples’ presents and futures, in Croatia such past tends to revolve around relatively brief four years of World War Two. Like in many other East European countries, this historical event was a nasty affair, marked by unprecedented destruction and wholesale butchery, most of it committed by Croatians at the expense of other Croatians. While many in present Croatia, including official political and cultural establishment, claim that this tragic episode is buried in pages of national history, it regularly rears its ugly head during elections when two major parties mobilise their voters not on the basis of ideology or policy differences but almost exclusively on the basis whether their ancestors fought on the side of fascist Ustashas or Communist-dominated Yugoslav Partisans.
This frustrating state of affairs haven’t been properly addressed by Croatian filmmakers, at least in post-independence Croatia (unlike Yugoslav days, when, even under the ideological and genre limitation of so-called “Partisan films”, there used to be something of a more critical approach towards WW2). One of the rare filmmakers brave enough to tackle this taboo was Ivan Goran Vitez, whose latest film Narodni heroj Ljiljan Vidić (“People’s hero Ljiljan Vidić” in English) deals with those issues in the form of a comedy.
The protagonist, played by Kristian Jaić, is a young man who lives in small Croatian village during WW2, being frustrated by poverty, small-mindedness of his fellow inhabitants and Nazi-backed regime of Independent State of Croatia (NDH). He finds solace in writing poetry and dreams of following the example of Vladimir Nazor and Ivan Goran Kovačić, great Croatian poets who joined the Partisans. Before he joins them, he is captured by Serb Chetniks, but the rescue comes in the form of small Partisan group led by Struja (played by Stojan Matavulj). He joins them and takes part in raid against radio-station which goes terribly wrong, resulting in Struja’s death and few survivors, including Ljiljan, having to hide in Zagreb. There they stumble into unique opportunity to end the war by taking part in talent show whose winners will have the honour of performing in front of Ante Pavelić (played by Dražen Čuček), Poglavnik (“the leader”) of NDH, and whose “surprise” guest at this event might be his main ally Adolf Hitler (played by Dražen Kühn).
Narodni heroj Ljiljan Vidić had something that could be described as success at Croatian box-office. Among the critics, not so much. This is hardly surprising, because it is far from the films Croatian critics tend to like. In other words, it is unlikely to score success at “serious” festivals being in the wrong genre (comedy) and dealing with the wrong war (WW2 instead of those that followed dissolution of Yugoslavia). Some of the criticism had somewhat better foundation. Ljiljan Vidić isn’t very good film. Director Ivan-Goran Vitez is relatively inexperienced and this shows, just like in the case of his previous film Šuma summarum (aka Forest Creatures), a not very coherent genre mix of serious thriller, sureal comedy and satire of dog-eat-dog capitalism in post-communist countries. Vitez mostly relies on the skills of his screenwriter Zoran Lazić, with whom he worked on Zakon!, short-lived television comedy show nowadays best known for being censored due to its acidic humour being too inappropriate for gentle tastes of public television viewers. Lazić provided film with relatively coherent plot structure, inspired by classic Bildungsromans and divided into chapters. Some of the more hostile critics accused Lazić and Vitez of borrowing too much from Quentin Tarantino and his Inglorious Basterds. The film actually leans more on the works of Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker, using their style of often absurd and sureal humour and replaying the technique of bombarding viewers with series of short gags of which some work and some don’t.
For the audience in Croatia (and most of ex-Yugoslavia) gags in Ljiljan Vidić might work, but for viewers unfamiliar with this region’s troubled history most of them would be incomprehensible. Vitez and Lazić not only mock some of the famous and infamous historic personalities from the past; they also try to deal with Croatian present with some of scenes trying to imagine how would modern day shopping malls, ATMs or reality television shows would look under fascist regime and with 1940s levels of technology. Some of the critics might attack some of the gags as politically incorrect, too crude and insensitive, especially among those who don’t look kindly towards comparisons between European Union and Hitler’s New Order. Neither would modern-day Croatian hipsters like the way their 1940s equivalent are portrayed in this film. At times, Lazić and Vitez lose inspiration and crude humour is replaced with unnecessarily graphic violence. Some of the jokes overstay their welcome, and one of the example is reimagining Yugoslav Communist leader Tito (played by Dragan Despot) as some sort of self-help guru.The director himself tried to justify some of those shortcomings in one of the interviews. He claimed that he had waited for a chance for new feature film so much that, once he got it, he used opportunity to fill into it as much content as possible.
Despite varying levels of humour and style, Narodni heroj Ljiljan Vidić nevertheless works. This is partly due to relatively unknown but very good cast. Jaić, whose looks resemble young Peter Sellers, is playing naive but well-meaning young man is such way to provides some sort of moral anchor for viewers who would otherwise detest his violent comrades. Tena Jeić Gajski, who looks very much like Hayley Atwell in Agent Carter, is also very effective as comical version of Partisan femme fatale. The film ends somewhat abruptly, but this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. In it, unlike the real life, the history it had mocked has ended.
REVIEW: The Cover Story (Naslovnica, 2014) January 16, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
add a comment
THE COVER STORY
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
Croatians these days don’t go to cinema much. When they do, it is usually due to some big Hollywood blockbuster, some over-hyped populist comedy or childen’s film that serves as good excuse for a family to visit shopping malls. Documentaries are the least likely genre to get average viewer’s attention in such state of affair. Croatian filmmakers are even less likely to do so, and that is hardly surprising, considering what Croatian film industry used to deliver to big screens in last quarter of century. So, having Croatian documentary as part of regular cinema repertoire is preciously rare occurrence which requires something extraordinary to happen. This being Croatia, an extraordinary thing is more likely to be something extraordinarily bad that extraordinarily good. And the extraordinarily bad thing is exactly what happened to the makers of The Cover Story.
The author of the film is Silvana Menđušić, Croatian journalist and former television repoter, who, among other things, used to be an editor of Gloria, country’s most popular women’s magazine. In her directorial debut she chose a subject close to her work – modern media and their, at times symbiotic, at other times abusive, relationship with celebrities and the way trivial stories and gossip take public attention away from more important subjects like politics and economy. Menđušić had the idea to tell this story from the perspective of one of Croatian tabloids’ favourite subjects. Dolores Lambaša was 32-year old actress who became famous by appearing in Croatian soap operas; she maintained her celebrity status due to her personal life or series of stormy romances, mostly with her male colleagues who were also few decades her senior. In small and, in recent times increasingly conservative, country, such lifestyle was perfect tabloid fodder but also brought many risks of making celebrity’s life miserable. Menđušić tried to portray such trials and tribulations by portraying a year in life of Dolores Lambaša, who apparently saw the project as an opportunity to present the public with more private and more authentic version of herself.
That was the idea. The life had something different in store for filmmakers. On October 23rd 2013 Lambaša was traveling at Belgrade-Zagreb highway in the company of her collague Stojan Matavulj. The car drove off the road and overturned. Matavulj survived, Lambaša didn’t. This tragic event brought another, macabre dimension of celebrity to Lambaša, but also faced Menđušić with a dilemma – whether to abandon or continue her project. She chose the latter option and documentary premiered few months later, apparently in much shortened form than originally planned.
The basic structure of The Cover Story is framed by the scenes shot shortly after Lambaša’s death. They are set in the newsroom of Story magazine and show how various reporters and editors try to make special edition dedicated to Lambaša and browse through apparently very rich archive of photographs made through the years. The main (and much larger) segment consists of footage Menđušić made few months before the accident which feature Lambaša. Some of those scenes show her working on her latest soap, dealing with various media, but also give a glimpse of her very personal life, including her own literary attempts, musings about career and apparent lack of culinary skills. Those scenes also show her increasingly frustrated with the way she is seen by Croatian public – as a “gold digger” and talentless social climber instead of serious professional actress. She tries to address this situation by talking to her friends and colleagues; some of them express frustration with apparent lack of serious opportunity and inability to pay bills by working in various provincial theatres and doing similar gigs. Lambaša apparently tries to turn another page in her professional career by appearing at stage and, before starting this new adventure, asks some of her older and more experienced colleagues for advice. Probably the most intriguing such sequence features aforementioned Matavulj who looks clearly agitated and provides some common sense words accompanied with series of profanities.
The Cover Story, even with specific circumstances of production taken into account, is a deeply flawed and utterly disappointing film. It is obviously unfinished and appears to be rushed into production for the sake of exploiting tragedy while it is fresh in minds of Croatian public. Menđušić, either afraid of controversy, lawsuits or accusations of sensationalism, fails to provide any meaningful context to her material. The viewers, unless they happened to be in Croatia in 2013 and had some familiarity to Lambaša and details of tragically short life, would completely fail to understand what was film about. Perhaps some day, probably in not so near future, footage made for The Cover Story will become part of more coherent and more comprehensive work that deals with Croatian media and society in the first decades of 21st Century. Until that happens, The Cover Story will not serve any purpose. Except as a warning to those few unfortunate Croatian cinemagoers who like to give a chance to Croatian documentary filmmakers.
REVIEW: 12 Monkeys (Season 1, 2015) January 14, 2016Posted by Dragan Antulov in Television Reviews.
Tags: 12 Monkeys, Aaron Stanford, Amanda Schull, Barbara Sukowa, Emily Hampshire, Kirk Acevedo, Syfy Channel
1 comment so far
SEASON 1 (2015)
A Television Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2016
The author of this review often experienced his own tastes and opinions clashing with those of his fellow cinephiles. One of the most extreme examples is Terry Gilliam’s filmography. For me, many of Gilliam’s most beloved or cherished films often look like a grotesque exercise of style over substance. This is one of the reasons why I consider 12 Monkeys to be the best of all Gilliam’s work and one of the best 1990s films in general; in it Gilliam was actually restrained and didn’t allow himself to endulge in unecessary spectacle at the expense of David and Janet Peoples’ script. That script was so good, so intelligent and so coherent that it is rather unsurprising to see it as a basis of a television remake.
The show, produced by Syfy Channel, in broadest terms follows the basic plot of the film. In 2017 cataclysmic pandemic, caused by ever-mutating viral strain, wiped out almost entire humanity, reducing survivors to barbarity in post-apocalyptic wasteland. In few little pockets of civilisation one small group of dedicated scientists managed to build a time machine and in 2043 launched a project with the aim of stopping the plague before it even begins. The mission is given to James Cole (played by Aaron Stanford) who travels back to 2015 and tries to locate the genetically engineered viral strain and stop the people who deliberately released it from their labs. Cole’s main clue is connected to virologist Dr. Cassandra Railly (played by Amandas Schull), who is, at first skeptical towards the claims of an obviously unsophisticated and unpleasantly violent stranger. Her doubts quickly dissipate and she begins helping him, having to deal not only with the often confusing side-effects and paradoxes of time travel, but also with increasingly complex mystery and sinister organisation called Army of Twelve Monkeys.
Inevitable comparisons between acclaimed feature films and television shows usually tend to favour the former. In case of Twelve Monkeys passage of two decades helped the show creators by setting new standards of special effects, production and storytelling. The show might not look like much, especially during first episodes, but the impression steadily improves. The plot takes place during two distinct periods – pre-plague (or “past”) and post-plague (“the present” or “future”) – with latter taking place mostly in interiors and the exteriors being the usual bleak post-apocalyptic settings that could be recreated without much use of special effects or some futuristic props. More problematic comparisons, at least during the first episodes, are between two casts. Aaron Stanford simply doesn’t have the same charisma and stature Bruce Willis had and it takes some time for his non-sympathetic character to develop. Amanda Schull, former ballerina best known for her role in Center Stage, is, on the other hand, looks too beautiful to be taken seriously as major scientist, which is the problem Madeleine Stowe didn’t have in the film version. However, by the end of the season, both those characters develop enough depth and chemistry for both actors to deliver credible and, at times, very powerful story.
While doing so, they are aided by equally powerful cast. Show creators make first major departure by switching the gender of a mentally disturbed character played by Brad Pitt in the film version; instead we get deliciously and, at times, menacingly insane character of literally mad scientist played by very impressive Emily Hampshire. Kirk Acevedo, on the other hand, gives another strong performance as Cole’s best friend and partner who also serves as his moral anchor and whose gradual transformation in the few last episodes of the season represent one of better twists in recent television dramas. The most impressive is, however, Barbara Sukowa, German actress who became famous four decades ago as Fasbbinder’s muse; in the beginning of 12 Monkeys she plays a character of cold, uncaring scientist which is hard to like and only gradually the viewers begin to warm to her while discover some very personal motives for her project. Sukowa is equally impressive while playing decades younger version of herself under heavy make-up, a task required by the script that deals with time travel but that could easily turn the show into unintentional parody.
The biggest asset of the show is, however, the script. It belongs to the “harder” strains of science fiction, or, in other words, takes the concept of time travel as seriously as such concept could be taken. So, time travelers, like protagonist, must act within frustratingly limited parameters of a single timeline; show creators, on the other hand, must pay extra attention to continuity with even the least significant details of each scene being consistent with what was only hinted in the timeline’s past or future. Apart from a single episode that briefly takes a place in an alternate universe, 12 Monkeys doesn’t dare to challenge so-called Grandfather Paradox, even if it means that the protagonists, despite their nominal mission actually can’t stop the apocalypse or prevent their loved ones dying in sometimes quite unpleasant ways (with new and more permissive television standards allowing for explicit violence, as well rather explicit language). Because everything in this show appears to be connected, discovering or anticipating such connections is something that could stimulate the audience and engage viewers’ intellects as well as emotions. 12 Monkeys also fits the concept of science fiction as the genre of ideas, and behind all the drama is eternal philosophical debate between predestination and free will. Rarely, even in today’s Golden Age of Television, we have opportunity to witness such debates in form of television drama. 12 Monkeys used such opportunity well in its first season and we might hope that such opportunity won’t be squandered in the second.
REVIEW: The Spirit of ’45 (2013) October 20, 2015Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.
add a comment
THE SPIRIT OF ’45
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2015
One of the more universal human traits is a tendency to watch the past through rose-tinted glasses. So, when someone mentions “old times” during conversation, it is more likely than not that those words would be accompanied with “good”. In the sphere of politics, this phenomenon was usually associated with the Right. That would make sense, because it is usually the old people who are more conservative or afraid of younger generations’ potentially dangerous and catastrophic ideas. There are, however, even some people on the Left who are also prone to nostalgia. One such example could be found in Michael Moore, whose Capitalism: A Love Story presented surprisingly sympathetic view of Eisenhower era – period until recently portrayed by American leftists as incarnation of everything wrong in American society. Even more telling example could be found in The Spirit of ’45, documentary by Ken Loach, British filmmaker known as one of the more outspoken and radical leftists among in today’s cinema.
In this film Loach deals with the events that arguably represent the greatest achievement of British Left in 20th Century. In Summer of 1945, only few months after the victorious end of WW2 in Europe, British voters rejected Conservative Party of wartime prime minister Winston Churchill. Instead they enthusiastically embraced Labour Party which had explicitly named socialism in their electoral platform. New government of Clement Attlee in next few years implemented series of far-reaching economic and social reforms which included mass nationalisation of railways, coal mines, electricity and other public services and also introduced new system of housing and National Health Service, thus creating modern welfare state.
Loach argues that two things made this monumental change possible. First was war, which, by its nature, mobilised British masses into huge collective action; its outcome – victory over Fascism – convinced most young people that everything was possible. The other, even more important reason for Labour landslide victory were memories of interwar period, marked by poverty, austerity and, most of all, broken promises for veterans of World War One and their families. New generation simply didn’t want return to pre-war status quo nor it would allow that their wartime sacrifices be in vain just as their fathers’ had been.
The Spirit of ’45 tells this story through combination of documentary footage of the period and interviews with some of the people who witnessed those events first hand. Both segments are made in black-in-white, probably for the sake of consistency. The interviewed people, who are in their 80s – nurses, miners, workers – through various anecdotes vividly describe unimaginable poverty and hopelessness of pre-war period, the way impoverished masses began to organise through trade unions and Labour Party and, finally, how their struggle finally bore fruit in electoral victory and seemingly small changes that made their lives exponentially better. Many of those stories are quite moving and film is quite convincing and making its point, even for viewers who are aware of radical leftist that Loach wears on his sleeve.
Loach is, on the other hand, less successful when it comes to explaining why post-war socialist utopia failed to materialise or why Labour failed to expand on their ambitious programs. Some of the interviewees point to reforms simply being in the form of state taking over companies from private owners, while leaving organisation, practices and even some of the old cadre intact. Loach hints that the changes simply weren’t radical enough, just like in Land and Freedom, when he blamed defeat of Republic in Spanish Civil War on its leaders’ reluctance to embrace people’s self-organisation and self-rule.
The last part of the film shows what happened three decades later, with arrival of new Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher and how her government systematically rolled back all or most of post-war reforms. Public services were reprivatised, workers’ rights abolished, trade unions suppressed, sometimes with massive use of police power, like in the case of great mining strike. Loach also accuses modern Labour leadership of being too close to middle and ruling class, and forgetting their working class roots. This part of the film simply repeats what many leftist intellectuals and artists were telling about Thatcher and her years in past three decades and in many ways looks like Loach is preaching to the choir.
The biggest flaw of his film is, however, in what it failed to tell the audience. The Spirit of ’45 never bothered to show that Attlee’s Labour government lasted for only one term and that consequent Conservative governments actually accepted its policies, not attempting to change until Thatcher years. General consensus about post-war welfare state and Keynesian economy began to unravel only in 1970s. Loach doesn’t show economic and other problems that led British voters to turn to Thatcher in 1979 in a same way they had chosen Atlee in 1945. Because of that, The Spirit of ’45 looks incomplete or, to be more precise, it looks like a great story made small by all-to-familiar selective use of historical facts. It is still a good and at times powerful, documentary; as a history lesson, at least for those who don’t share Loach’s political views, not so much.
REVIEW: Inspector Morse (Specials, 1995 – 2000) January 4, 2015Posted by Dragan Antulov in Television Reviews.
Tags: Inspector Morse, John Thaw, Kevin Whately
add a comment
Specials (1995 – 2000)
A Television Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2015
It is rare to see television drama creators investing significant effort for their show end well, and it is even rarer to see them succeeding in that. Makers of Inspector Morse are among those few who could be proud of such achievement. Beloved British crime show provided its loyal viewers with one of the longest and, in the some time, most rewarding rides into sunset. This happened due to producers’ wise decision not to push its creative and other envelopes and to allow the inevitable to happen at slow pace. So, instead of trying to squeeze the end in the single season, Inspector Morse was ending for more than half a decade – in the form of a television specials, in other words, regular television films being aired made once a year. This allowed actors and staff to unburden themselves while Colin Dexter, the original character’s creator, had opportunity to wrap his story up through couple of novels, later serving as basis for individual “specials”.
The Way Through the Woods, aired in 1995, is based on Dexter’s eponymous award-winning novel. It begins like many Morse mysteries – with brutal incident that actually has very little do with the general plot. Convicted serial killer dies as a result of a prison gang attack, but not before recanting part of his confession and forcing Morse to reopen cold case and try finding the real culprit of young woman’s disappearance. Morse’s efforts not only create friction between him and some of his colleagues who originally investigated the case, but also reveal certain unflattering truths about local community and lead to more bloodshed and mayhem. The Way Throught The Woods is important because it adds another regular character to the show – forensic expert Dr. Laura Hobson, played brilliantly by Clare Holman. The most impressive part of the episode is the ending; it is extremely violent, uncompromisingly dark and utterly harrowing for protagonists, requiring the best performances from both John Thaw and Kevin Whately. Younger viewers are, however, more likely to notice Michelle Fairley, who plays character that could be in the same time described as very similar and quite different from Lady Cathelyn Stark in Game of Thrones.
The Daughters of Cain, aired in 1996, is one of the episodes with the least satisfactory ending. The actual murder mystery is never properly solved. The script by Julian Mitchell covers some important and rather dark topics like domestic abuse, terminal illness and inappropriate teacher-student relationships, but their general treatment is so casual and at times so lighthearted that it makes the episode look like a parody of Morse. Certain subplots and scenes actually don’t make much sense and appear to be in the show only to provide adequate running time. The only thing preventing complete disappointment and rising the general quality to proper Morse standards is acting. Tony Haygarth is impressive and menacing as violent husband, same as Brenda Brooks as his long-suffering wife. The best is Phyllis Logan, who plays one of the more unusual characters of the show, successfully making delicate balance between pathos and comedy.
Death Is Now My Neighbour, aired one year later, again shows that the plots were secondary ingredients to Morse formula. It begins with a seemingly random and senseless shooting and develops into investigation that reveals most bitter fight for the prestigious Oxford posts, blackmails and corruption that taints modern media professionals just like anyone else. The audience would probably pay little attention to the scheme which is both complicated and forgettable at the same time. Instead, it is the acting talent that glues them to the screen. The best example is veteran actor Richard Briers which portrays one of the most evil characters of the whole show, with impressive scenes in which he revels in his wickedness; yet he is not actually the conventional main villain. The episode also features Roger Allam in a smaller role; the very same actor would years later appear as Morse’s superior in Endeavour. The audience would also pay more attention for certain scenes that they waited for in previous thirty or so episodes. At the end, Morse, after many failures and disappointments, actually gets the girl and enjoys his long-deserved R&R. Most importantly, viewers finally get to know protagonist’s unusual first name.
The Wench Is Dead, penultimate episode aired in 1998, represents the greatest departure from the usual content of the show. There were episodes set outside Oxford, in different cities, countries (Italy) and continents (Australia), yet none of them was set in different century. The plot provides opportunity for that in a meeting between Morse and American historian (played by Lisa Eichhorn) leading to Morse’s investigation into 1859 murder and his attempt to prove that two innocent men had been unjustly hanged. This rather odd episode features some interesting and times delightful, albeit rather brief scenes of period reconstruction; the mystery is rather weak and quickly solved by Morse. Another unusual detail is absence of Lewis. The viewers would, however, pay more attention towards the reason which allows Morse to spend time researching ancient murder – his deteriorating health that would be the most important issue in the last episode.
The Remorseful Day, aired in November 2000, is the last episode of the show and one of the few that was actually conceived and meant to be the last. It is based on the novel in which Colin Dexter did what few of his fellow crime authors had done – actually killed his most beloved character. The fans of the show were most likely quite familiar with this detail, with the novel being published in 1999, a year before its television adaptation. The script by Stephen Churchill actually pays little attention to the murder mystery involving nymphomaniac (played by Meg Davies) who might had some prior relationship with Morse. Everything in this episode is under the shadow of the inevitable end of Morse – either through impeding retirement, in which he would be joined by his superior and friend Chief Superintendent Strange (played most movingly by James Grout) or through the years of alcohol abuse taking their final and brutal toll. Direction by film veteran Jack Gold is superb, and it could be best seen at the very end. The few scenes, during which actual police investigation suddenly loses importance compared to what happens to Morse, are among the most effective in the television history. The shot during which Lewis departs from his superior with a simple gesture and few words is heart-wrenching, especially considering that the life in this case followed art and that John Thaw died in February 2002. The end of Inspector Morse has set a high bar for memorable endings, just as the show in general has set a high bar for quality television.