Film Review: The Devil All the Time (2020), dir. Antonio Campos, distributed by Netflix
This review contains spoilers
A southern gothic psychological thriller that boasts an ensemble cast of dubious characters, The Devil All the Time is a story of multiple narratives, blended together by blood, religion and lurid exploits. Based on the novel of the same name by Donald Ray Pollock (who provides the steely narration), this screen version is a perfect match for those fans of Stoker (2013), No Country for Old Men (2007) and We Have Always Lived in the Castle (2018).
Tom Holland stars as the adolescent Arvin Russell, who has been shaped by the rageful pride displayed by his father, Willard. Having seen his father, played by Bill Skarsgard, become devoted to God, his experience of religion is that praying and acts of sacrifice do little to change things. Willard forces Arvin to pray for his dying mother, but realising that it is not enough, takes the family dog into the forest and kills it as a sacrifice. The trauma of the event, and his father’s subsequent suicide induces in Arvin a religion hating attitude and an over protectiveness of his grandmother and adopted sister, Lenora, played by Eliza Scanlen.
The plot relies heavily on background events, and so by the time Tom Holland has made it to the screen you could be forgiven for thinking that, despite the great performances by Skarsgard and Haley Bennet (Charlotte Russell, Arvin’s mother), the film may well be coming to a close. But the plot allows for not only greater performances, but also more violence and lurid acts - if dog killing, POW murders and Bonnie and Cylde type sexual murders weren’t enough.
Though it lacks moral depth and neglects to explore what makes these characters tick, it redeems itself with excellent performances, namely by Robert Pattinson and Harry Melling. Melling stars as Roy Laferty, a religious fanatic who catches the eye of Helen (Mia Wasikowska) at a church service in which he states that before loving God he was scared to death of spiders. He subsequently opens a jar full of them over his face to show that all fear has gone away. Melling, who had his big break playing Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter series, has demonstrated the calibre of his talent, previously with his role as the amputee impresario Harrison in the Coen Brothers’ The Ballad of Buster Sruggs. Melling again brings that eerie captivation to the role of Roy, while maintaining a vulnerability that makes your hair stand on end when he’s positioned over Helen’s body, having murdered her with such confidence that he can resurrect her, as he believes God has granted him the power to do so.
Pattinson’s eccentric priest is full of mysticism, and a review could be written on his outfit alone; baby blue suit, frilly shirts, and a flashy Cadillac to match. And yet these things do little to evoke sympathy, as it is discovered that he is abusing his power by sexually assaulting young girls, including Lenora. The showdown between Pattinson and Holland in the church is a masterclass in subtlety and accents. Pattinson’s pitiful rebuke of his assault on Lenora is cringy and disgusting - a role that Pattinson has mastered.
Congratulations are in order for the performances made by Riley Kough and Jason Clarke (Sandy and Carl Henderson) also, though it seems the length of the film does their performances a disservice. The speed of which their relationship accelerates from town hopping lovers to murderous deviants is more confusing than it is shocking. It lacks the - dare I say it - style which, say, Tom Waits and Amanda Warren give their respective murdering lovers in Seven Psychopaths. Again, this is due to a lack of depth. It is not that a film must present a motive; think of all the great killers that have graced our screen that, without reason, make their characters so much more shocking and unlikeable. The lack of time devoted to their narratives seems the problem, owing itself to a lack of understanding.
The Devil All the Time is a gritty mess, admittedly, yet this makes it a compelling watch. Great performances, scenery and settings, what the plot lacks in, these aesthetic features are a gem to absorb.
Written by: Liv Beards
Published: 25th September 2020
A southern gothic psychological thriller that boasts an ensemble cast of dubious characters, The Devil All the Time is a story of multiple narratives, blended together by blood, religion and lurid exploits. Based on the novel of the same name by Donald Ray Pollock (who provides the steely narration), this screen version is a perfect match for those fans of Stoker (2013), No Country for Old Men (2007) and We Have Always Lived in the Castle (2018).
Tom Holland stars as the adolescent Arvin Russell, who has been shaped by the rageful pride displayed by his father, Willard. Having seen his father, played by Bill Skarsgard, become devoted to God, his experience of religion is that praying and acts of sacrifice do little to change things. Willard forces Arvin to pray for his dying mother, but realising that it is not enough, takes the family dog into the forest and kills it as a sacrifice. The trauma of the event, and his father’s subsequent suicide induces in Arvin a religion hating attitude and an over protectiveness of his grandmother and adopted sister, Lenora, played by Eliza Scanlen.
The plot relies heavily on background events, and so by the time Tom Holland has made it to the screen you could be forgiven for thinking that, despite the great performances by Skarsgard and Haley Bennet (Charlotte Russell, Arvin’s mother), the film may well be coming to a close. But the plot allows for not only greater performances, but also more violence and lurid acts - if dog killing, POW murders and Bonnie and Cylde type sexual murders weren’t enough.
Though it lacks moral depth and neglects to explore what makes these characters tick, it redeems itself with excellent performances, namely by Robert Pattinson and Harry Melling. Melling stars as Roy Laferty, a religious fanatic who catches the eye of Helen (Mia Wasikowska) at a church service in which he states that before loving God he was scared to death of spiders. He subsequently opens a jar full of them over his face to show that all fear has gone away. Melling, who had his big break playing Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter series, has demonstrated the calibre of his talent, previously with his role as the amputee impresario Harrison in the Coen Brothers’ The Ballad of Buster Sruggs. Melling again brings that eerie captivation to the role of Roy, while maintaining a vulnerability that makes your hair stand on end when he’s positioned over Helen’s body, having murdered her with such confidence that he can resurrect her, as he believes God has granted him the power to do so.
Pattinson’s eccentric priest is full of mysticism, and a review could be written on his outfit alone; baby blue suit, frilly shirts, and a flashy Cadillac to match. And yet these things do little to evoke sympathy, as it is discovered that he is abusing his power by sexually assaulting young girls, including Lenora. The showdown between Pattinson and Holland in the church is a masterclass in subtlety and accents. Pattinson’s pitiful rebuke of his assault on Lenora is cringy and disgusting - a role that Pattinson has mastered.
Congratulations are in order for the performances made by Riley Kough and Jason Clarke (Sandy and Carl Henderson) also, though it seems the length of the film does their performances a disservice. The speed of which their relationship accelerates from town hopping lovers to murderous deviants is more confusing than it is shocking. It lacks the - dare I say it - style which, say, Tom Waits and Amanda Warren give their respective murdering lovers in Seven Psychopaths. Again, this is due to a lack of depth. It is not that a film must present a motive; think of all the great killers that have graced our screen that, without reason, make their characters so much more shocking and unlikeable. The lack of time devoted to their narratives seems the problem, owing itself to a lack of understanding.
The Devil All the Time is a gritty mess, admittedly, yet this makes it a compelling watch. Great performances, scenery and settings, what the plot lacks in, these aesthetic features are a gem to absorb.
Written by: Liv Beards
Published: 25th September 2020
National THeatre Home Series: The Madness of King George III By Alan Bennett
Some plays need a little historical context to be understood, so that they can be understood. That’s what can get in the way of enjoyment. This is certainly the case, here. Simply knowing that the proceedings are about George III and his “madness” isn’t enough. He had a long life, and the longest reign of any royal, when he died. The length of his life isn’t particularly relevant, in itself. What makes it matter is the events that took place during his Kingship. They were concerned with the American War of Independence (1775-1783), and the loss of Empire colonies. Before this came the Seven Years War (1756-1763), between England and France Suffice to say, he had a lot on his plate . . . Though The Madness of King George III isn’t a history lesson per say (at least not one in the traditional sense – more on this later), it’s important to know that it’s set around 1810, when a regency was established, after he was deemed too ill to rule. These aspects, specifically his famed mental illness are the chief focuses.
Alan Bennett, British-heavyweight of theatre (he’s pretty prolific in literature, too, with much poetry and short-stories available; in addition to that he’s made radio-shows and various T.V. shows. Certainly, he’s royalty in “the arts”) wrote the play, in 1991. It went on to be performed again, in 1993 and 1994 in many countries, including the U.S. Bennet’s every bit a national treasure. The fact he’s a former Academic comes through in the play. Historically, there’s plenty of references and nuanced detail that shows he knows what he’s on about. It’s this, fused with the story of the play, and the careful and deeply human depiction of character that makes it memorable and a powerful piece of theatre to see.
Mark Gatiss stars in this production, from 2018. As the title character, he utterly dominates and establishes himself as the main feature. This is true right from the off, with the typical melodrama and mawkish, regal pomp that the character requires. It’s his show, very much. Gatiss gets that there’s no time to waste, and he has to set the marker. The way he does this is through an immersion into the role of King, not just George III. He commands in every sense. His stage-chops being more than equal to the challenge. It’s those traits that set him apart from so many other actors, and he shows exactly why, here. Gatiss knows he’s playing a symbol, as well as a character. Fusing both isn’t easy, and the way that it’s achieved is by slowly revealing the man behind the crown, and letting that guide the action and story.
The current backdrop to the events of the play are the domestic political goings-on, of the time. William Pitt and his opposition party counterpart, Charles James Fox. Nicholas Bishop and Amanda Hadingue take the mantle of these sparring MPs, who both have different idea of how the regency should work. Whilst these roles don’t give either actor massive amounts if stage time, they are pivotal to what’s going on. Both actors manage to capture the general theme of the play, which is playing with peoples’ lives. Their machinations treat the fate of George III as a mere of extension and policy, a means to an end to get the agenda established. What’s captured well by both is the importance placed on winning, at all costs; this is the other side of the coin of the cost of losing, too. These two performances help to contribute to the tone, which is one of psychologically charged atmosphere.
Playing Doctor Willis is Adrian Scarborough. A tough call having to go up against Gattis’ George III, but Scarborough is up for the task. The absolute belief in the cause is what comes through. To audiences what comes across is a disturbing example of quackery as science, that’s forced on the King. The terrifying reality is that this was what was believed to be required. The inanity is the situation. That’s what is explored in historical context. Scarborough can’t be seen to be sinister in the truest sense, but is more an agent of a system that genuinely believed this would bring about recovery. Another aspect of Scarborough’s character is that the medical profession might be seen as the true “establishment”. As an institution, they ultimately get to bring about a direct consequence regarding the current monarch. This illustrates the changing nature of power in Great Britain, and the way that things were run. It may have been 150 years ago since the restoration, but this is really very little time at all, when it comes to such sweeping changes in the way a country is run. Bennet’s version of Doctor Willis may also be seen to be a motif for the Enlightenment movement beginning to establish itself into all ways of life. No longer a simple battle between the monarchy and the parliamentarians, the keys to the Kingdom were at stake, and the decision makers stuck in bitter-feuds that were ongoing attempts to gain dominance. Clever stuff from Bennet. This mixture is only some of what makes things work so well. There’s also his vast array of theatrical convention, too, that is sometimes subtle and easily missed.
Blind-casting makes the play interesting and casts women as male roles. Of course, this is nothing new, but it still makes an effective statement about the society of the time. The fact that women couldn’t have been in those positions, and are depicted as such in the play, is plenty enough to make it a rebellious inclusion. Those who take these parts are high-ranking courtier, Fitzroy, played by Nadia Albina, the already mentioned Amanda Hadingue (she plays two parts, also doubling as Dr Pepys), Louise Jameson’s Dr Warren. All of the medical professions did what they needed to, and try to establish themselves as the one in the know. The irony is that none were. Many of their remedies may well have contributed to the ills that were in question. At the very least, they must surely have had a profoundly negative impact on the mental conditions of patients. Perhaps none more so than King George III himself.
What remains from the viewing experience is a timeless play, made that way because it relies on what makes us human to communicate to the audience. Bennet knows how drama works and is well-versed in this field. Gatiss excels in his ability to make this a reality. His depiction is harrowing, at times. His writhing and screaming as he is bound into a straitjacket and essentially tortured, is as visceral as anything you’ll see on screen. He makes it so real, that the true darkness of this much discussed element of British regal history. Even the most staunchly anti-monarchist could surely never fail to wince at this barbaric treatment is brought back into the spotlight. Gatiss makes Bennet’s character transcend politics and perspective. That’s why it works. The almost self-referential nod to King Lear is all but a fourth-wall break, a desperate plea from the title character of this play to scream out for help, from his own tragic state. That act just about encompasses this play. It’s a clever piece from Bennet, another stunning performance from Gatiss (and a fine supporting-cast performance too) that offsets the traditional idea of history being objectively told, with the subjective reality of the emotional experiences of those who live through it. It’s easy to see why this play has had so much success in multiple guises, including a big-screen adaptation The Madness of King George (1994). What shines through is what should in all great drama, a deeply human tale. Bennet also provides a history lesson in the way that no book can. He takes a period of history and teaches us a lesson that applies to today. He questions the very way that we record history. There’s likely nobody better qualified to teach history via drama, to the British, than Bennet. Watch and learn.
Nottingham Playhouse Production of The Madness of King George III is available,free and online until 18th June 2020.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 16th June 2020
Alan Bennett, British-heavyweight of theatre (he’s pretty prolific in literature, too, with much poetry and short-stories available; in addition to that he’s made radio-shows and various T.V. shows. Certainly, he’s royalty in “the arts”) wrote the play, in 1991. It went on to be performed again, in 1993 and 1994 in many countries, including the U.S. Bennet’s every bit a national treasure. The fact he’s a former Academic comes through in the play. Historically, there’s plenty of references and nuanced detail that shows he knows what he’s on about. It’s this, fused with the story of the play, and the careful and deeply human depiction of character that makes it memorable and a powerful piece of theatre to see.
Mark Gatiss stars in this production, from 2018. As the title character, he utterly dominates and establishes himself as the main feature. This is true right from the off, with the typical melodrama and mawkish, regal pomp that the character requires. It’s his show, very much. Gatiss gets that there’s no time to waste, and he has to set the marker. The way he does this is through an immersion into the role of King, not just George III. He commands in every sense. His stage-chops being more than equal to the challenge. It’s those traits that set him apart from so many other actors, and he shows exactly why, here. Gatiss knows he’s playing a symbol, as well as a character. Fusing both isn’t easy, and the way that it’s achieved is by slowly revealing the man behind the crown, and letting that guide the action and story.
The current backdrop to the events of the play are the domestic political goings-on, of the time. William Pitt and his opposition party counterpart, Charles James Fox. Nicholas Bishop and Amanda Hadingue take the mantle of these sparring MPs, who both have different idea of how the regency should work. Whilst these roles don’t give either actor massive amounts if stage time, they are pivotal to what’s going on. Both actors manage to capture the general theme of the play, which is playing with peoples’ lives. Their machinations treat the fate of George III as a mere of extension and policy, a means to an end to get the agenda established. What’s captured well by both is the importance placed on winning, at all costs; this is the other side of the coin of the cost of losing, too. These two performances help to contribute to the tone, which is one of psychologically charged atmosphere.
Playing Doctor Willis is Adrian Scarborough. A tough call having to go up against Gattis’ George III, but Scarborough is up for the task. The absolute belief in the cause is what comes through. To audiences what comes across is a disturbing example of quackery as science, that’s forced on the King. The terrifying reality is that this was what was believed to be required. The inanity is the situation. That’s what is explored in historical context. Scarborough can’t be seen to be sinister in the truest sense, but is more an agent of a system that genuinely believed this would bring about recovery. Another aspect of Scarborough’s character is that the medical profession might be seen as the true “establishment”. As an institution, they ultimately get to bring about a direct consequence regarding the current monarch. This illustrates the changing nature of power in Great Britain, and the way that things were run. It may have been 150 years ago since the restoration, but this is really very little time at all, when it comes to such sweeping changes in the way a country is run. Bennet’s version of Doctor Willis may also be seen to be a motif for the Enlightenment movement beginning to establish itself into all ways of life. No longer a simple battle between the monarchy and the parliamentarians, the keys to the Kingdom were at stake, and the decision makers stuck in bitter-feuds that were ongoing attempts to gain dominance. Clever stuff from Bennet. This mixture is only some of what makes things work so well. There’s also his vast array of theatrical convention, too, that is sometimes subtle and easily missed.
Blind-casting makes the play interesting and casts women as male roles. Of course, this is nothing new, but it still makes an effective statement about the society of the time. The fact that women couldn’t have been in those positions, and are depicted as such in the play, is plenty enough to make it a rebellious inclusion. Those who take these parts are high-ranking courtier, Fitzroy, played by Nadia Albina, the already mentioned Amanda Hadingue (she plays two parts, also doubling as Dr Pepys), Louise Jameson’s Dr Warren. All of the medical professions did what they needed to, and try to establish themselves as the one in the know. The irony is that none were. Many of their remedies may well have contributed to the ills that were in question. At the very least, they must surely have had a profoundly negative impact on the mental conditions of patients. Perhaps none more so than King George III himself.
What remains from the viewing experience is a timeless play, made that way because it relies on what makes us human to communicate to the audience. Bennet knows how drama works and is well-versed in this field. Gatiss excels in his ability to make this a reality. His depiction is harrowing, at times. His writhing and screaming as he is bound into a straitjacket and essentially tortured, is as visceral as anything you’ll see on screen. He makes it so real, that the true darkness of this much discussed element of British regal history. Even the most staunchly anti-monarchist could surely never fail to wince at this barbaric treatment is brought back into the spotlight. Gatiss makes Bennet’s character transcend politics and perspective. That’s why it works. The almost self-referential nod to King Lear is all but a fourth-wall break, a desperate plea from the title character of this play to scream out for help, from his own tragic state. That act just about encompasses this play. It’s a clever piece from Bennet, another stunning performance from Gatiss (and a fine supporting-cast performance too) that offsets the traditional idea of history being objectively told, with the subjective reality of the emotional experiences of those who live through it. It’s easy to see why this play has had so much success in multiple guises, including a big-screen adaptation The Madness of King George (1994). What shines through is what should in all great drama, a deeply human tale. Bennet also provides a history lesson in the way that no book can. He takes a period of history and teaches us a lesson that applies to today. He questions the very way that we record history. There’s likely nobody better qualified to teach history via drama, to the British, than Bennet. Watch and learn.
Nottingham Playhouse Production of The Madness of King George III is available,free and online until 18th June 2020.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 16th June 2020
Documentary Review: 13th
If ever there was an important role of streaming services, such as Netflix, it’s to help fund and bring into the mainstream cutting-edge documentaries. If not, then all we’ll get are our entertainment shows. Escapism is important and we all love it, having that binge-watching session over a whole weekend, or getting excited when the next season of your latest obsession drops. There’s no denying that, and there’s no need to. Yet, if that’s all you watch then you’ll miss out on some very important documentaries, that will offer you something very different, and a way to learn about the lives of people you may never otherwise do so.
In 2016, Netflix released 13th. It was initially a critically acclaimed effort to offer an important revision to what had become mainstream accepted story of the history of black struggle in America. Made by Ava DuVernay, it takes a multi-faceted approach to try and expose the mechanisms of institutional racism and the reasons it is purported. A number of Academics, those in positions of influence within the legal sector, and even ex-politicians contributed. That it had the platform of a streaming service that so many subscribed to mattered. Not only was the message of the film important, but also the method that it was being viewed by. It could compete with the latest shows and films to come on. So important was the film deemed that it became the first ever documentary to open the New York Film Festival, in 2016. This was an important milestone, as the value of the film, and its message, was clearly seen.
Following the murder of George Floyd in America, by Derek Chauvin, 13th rocketed back into the realm of popularity. Truly shocking that it should take such an act of horror to make people stand up and take note of what lead to this. Still, some solace in the hope that people can get a glimpse of why this took place. That’s what the documentary does. It offers a tiny overview. That’s no fault of the film or the maker, and shouldn’t be read as such. The film does a wonderful job. What’s important to understand by this statement is that that’s all that can be done. So massive is the issue, and so weaved into the very constitution of the so called “Land of the Free”, that is the best it can hope to do. It reveals much that many outside the U.K wouldn’t be aware of. The horrible reality that has meant that so many others have had to endure, and so many still are, as they languish behind bars in a system that’s designed to make money from their incarceration.
As all powerful stories do, this one firmly establishes the very root of the issues. Slavery. It’s estimated that up to 4 million lives were “owned” by others. Trying to imagine suffering in numbers often numbs the sense of the individual struggle of such barbaric and despicable cruelty. It can’t be overestimated. Not ever. Sadly, there are many, both in the right-wing hegemony of the U.S. and those influenced by them that seem to want to. Some say that the best way to deal with things is to try and simply move forward, and leave the past in the past. As well being impossible, and a massive part of the problem of why racism continues to fester and breed, that would deny so much, too. Denial is very much a theme in this film, as it attempts to show that the Civil Rights Movement didn’t achieve all of the things that it supposedly did. Far from it.
Taking roughly a linear journey from the early 1970s to now, this film looks at how black lives in America changed, in real terms. All that was promised didn’t come to pass. What it shows is that the apparatus used to control black people simply morphed into something much more subtle and dangerous in a new way than segregation and overt status as second-class citizens. Prison numbers of black males began to rise, in vast swathes following the Civil Rights Act. The offences that black men and women were arrested for were minor infringements, that white people were likely given a ticket for, and not taken to the cells. The evidence the film puts forward is devastating. It’s not the stuff of opinion, or mere left-wing posturing. It’s all there, on record. The numbers are terrifying.
As the film goes into the 80s it focuses on the “War on Drugs”, that saw the U.S. declare war on those who were in possession or using addictive substances. What lies beneath this is the narrative of paradox. Many of those in impoverished communities were susceptible to dealing drugs, or getting hooked, due to categorically being denied opportunities and thrown on societies scrap-heap. That’s not to say that racism didn’t affect those who were wealthier and black. It did. But the focus in very much on large-scale warfare on communities and whole towns. Police were allowed to stop and search with no or minimal justification. The hatred was begun, the damage done. That wasn’t all. The police forces were militarised and heavily funded. The money, that was so badly needed in black communities went to the wrong place. And so . . . Crime and poverty and poverty and crime. Black people tried to improve their life but get ignored and marginalised. You turn to crime and then go into the system. And this documentary shows just what that means and why so many never get out. Instead of support and help, they get judgement and a label. It’s that which prevents rehabilitation.
As the film tracks the rise of the population of black prison inmates, it grows and grows . . .The numbers seem beyond belief, but are tragically true. Given that black-males account for around ten percent of the population in the U.S., the same demographic makes up forty-percent of the prison population. Of course, being a black woman in the U.S. brings many dangers of its own, too. The documentary doesn’t forget that. The countless prison widows and the partners, mothers, sisters and daughters. The focus on the male prison numbers is used because of the sheer disparity. A film, or any journalism is limited in how it can make people hear what’s not being said enough. That’s why it uses this aspect; also, it shows the very real way that black families live under constant threat of being torn apart.
Arguably the most shocking aspect of the film is the direct correlation between profit and the number of people imprisoned. As the film moves into the 90s, this is explored in detail, and ties in with the laws that Bill Clinton’s administration relied on to foster support from the traditionally Republican voting members of the population. Clinton’s infamous “three strikes and you’re out” introduction meant a further surge in the prison population. Many people trapped in a life of crime soon became trapped permanently, jailed indefinitely. The documentary reveals that a shady corporate lobbying group, A.L.E.C. (American Legislative Exchange Council) certainly has much say in what becomes law. With many corporations set to profit from this, none more unobjective than the Corrections Corporation of America (and other privately owned and funded prisons), it begins to emerge that what’s happening is unfathomable; yet, it’s real. The clear link between hefty sentences and cashing in on incarcerating people comes to light.
Later, Clinton is seen in the documentary admitting that he made an error, but it’s too little and too late. The stirring up of populist hate-mongering has done the damage, and viewers begin to have things laid out. This is what was Donald Trump’s campaigners’ gold. They tapped into deep-rooted prejudices and got into power. They subsequently dismantled many of the policies that Obama brought in to try and bridge divides.
Other laws and social injustices explored include the “Stand your ground” law, which led to the death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman. What follows is further irrefutable evidence that if you’re black in America, particularly in certain states, you are at a massively higher risk of being killed, or being sent to prison. That’s not all. There’s a terribly high chance that if you do go to prison, you’ll die either by or via the system. A devastating example of the other element of inequality shown in this film, the “plea bargain” predicament, is Kaleif Browder’s death at the age of 22. It’s testament to so much that’s wrong. The stark and ugly truth is that these sectors of the overarching hierarchy do the exact opposite for so many than they’re meant to, which is to protect them and rehabilitate.
By the time this documentary is over, there’s a sinking feeling. This is why there’s riots and what’s causing them. Until these deeply engrained and entrenched moral atrocities are addressed fully and real change forced, they’ll continue to happen, because they have to. That’s what comes across, in light of watching this now. The very real alternative of what many black people feel will happen to them and their loved ones if they do nothing. They feel forced into action. Like the documentary itself, which can never illustrate the full extent of suffering, abuse, harassment and daily threats to black lives in the U.S., this review must also acknowledge that not all names of those who have either done what they can to help matters, and those who’ve paid the ultimate price, are highlighted, or had their memories honoured. Yet, if reading this helps one person to watch this important film, then a tiny difference can have been made – hopefully the start of a journey. It’s the series of tiny differences that make bigger ones, slowly but surely. In watching this, viewers get only a glimpse, but that glimpse can be enough to go on to read, watch and do more. There are many ways to help, both morally and practically. Get involved by educating yourself, listening and if you can donate to bail funds or other charities. Have conversations and get active. Watch this and learn, but take away more. We can’t keep doing nothing.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 11th June 2020
In 2016, Netflix released 13th. It was initially a critically acclaimed effort to offer an important revision to what had become mainstream accepted story of the history of black struggle in America. Made by Ava DuVernay, it takes a multi-faceted approach to try and expose the mechanisms of institutional racism and the reasons it is purported. A number of Academics, those in positions of influence within the legal sector, and even ex-politicians contributed. That it had the platform of a streaming service that so many subscribed to mattered. Not only was the message of the film important, but also the method that it was being viewed by. It could compete with the latest shows and films to come on. So important was the film deemed that it became the first ever documentary to open the New York Film Festival, in 2016. This was an important milestone, as the value of the film, and its message, was clearly seen.
Following the murder of George Floyd in America, by Derek Chauvin, 13th rocketed back into the realm of popularity. Truly shocking that it should take such an act of horror to make people stand up and take note of what lead to this. Still, some solace in the hope that people can get a glimpse of why this took place. That’s what the documentary does. It offers a tiny overview. That’s no fault of the film or the maker, and shouldn’t be read as such. The film does a wonderful job. What’s important to understand by this statement is that that’s all that can be done. So massive is the issue, and so weaved into the very constitution of the so called “Land of the Free”, that is the best it can hope to do. It reveals much that many outside the U.K wouldn’t be aware of. The horrible reality that has meant that so many others have had to endure, and so many still are, as they languish behind bars in a system that’s designed to make money from their incarceration.
As all powerful stories do, this one firmly establishes the very root of the issues. Slavery. It’s estimated that up to 4 million lives were “owned” by others. Trying to imagine suffering in numbers often numbs the sense of the individual struggle of such barbaric and despicable cruelty. It can’t be overestimated. Not ever. Sadly, there are many, both in the right-wing hegemony of the U.S. and those influenced by them that seem to want to. Some say that the best way to deal with things is to try and simply move forward, and leave the past in the past. As well being impossible, and a massive part of the problem of why racism continues to fester and breed, that would deny so much, too. Denial is very much a theme in this film, as it attempts to show that the Civil Rights Movement didn’t achieve all of the things that it supposedly did. Far from it.
Taking roughly a linear journey from the early 1970s to now, this film looks at how black lives in America changed, in real terms. All that was promised didn’t come to pass. What it shows is that the apparatus used to control black people simply morphed into something much more subtle and dangerous in a new way than segregation and overt status as second-class citizens. Prison numbers of black males began to rise, in vast swathes following the Civil Rights Act. The offences that black men and women were arrested for were minor infringements, that white people were likely given a ticket for, and not taken to the cells. The evidence the film puts forward is devastating. It’s not the stuff of opinion, or mere left-wing posturing. It’s all there, on record. The numbers are terrifying.
As the film goes into the 80s it focuses on the “War on Drugs”, that saw the U.S. declare war on those who were in possession or using addictive substances. What lies beneath this is the narrative of paradox. Many of those in impoverished communities were susceptible to dealing drugs, or getting hooked, due to categorically being denied opportunities and thrown on societies scrap-heap. That’s not to say that racism didn’t affect those who were wealthier and black. It did. But the focus in very much on large-scale warfare on communities and whole towns. Police were allowed to stop and search with no or minimal justification. The hatred was begun, the damage done. That wasn’t all. The police forces were militarised and heavily funded. The money, that was so badly needed in black communities went to the wrong place. And so . . . Crime and poverty and poverty and crime. Black people tried to improve their life but get ignored and marginalised. You turn to crime and then go into the system. And this documentary shows just what that means and why so many never get out. Instead of support and help, they get judgement and a label. It’s that which prevents rehabilitation.
As the film tracks the rise of the population of black prison inmates, it grows and grows . . .The numbers seem beyond belief, but are tragically true. Given that black-males account for around ten percent of the population in the U.S., the same demographic makes up forty-percent of the prison population. Of course, being a black woman in the U.S. brings many dangers of its own, too. The documentary doesn’t forget that. The countless prison widows and the partners, mothers, sisters and daughters. The focus on the male prison numbers is used because of the sheer disparity. A film, or any journalism is limited in how it can make people hear what’s not being said enough. That’s why it uses this aspect; also, it shows the very real way that black families live under constant threat of being torn apart.
Arguably the most shocking aspect of the film is the direct correlation between profit and the number of people imprisoned. As the film moves into the 90s, this is explored in detail, and ties in with the laws that Bill Clinton’s administration relied on to foster support from the traditionally Republican voting members of the population. Clinton’s infamous “three strikes and you’re out” introduction meant a further surge in the prison population. Many people trapped in a life of crime soon became trapped permanently, jailed indefinitely. The documentary reveals that a shady corporate lobbying group, A.L.E.C. (American Legislative Exchange Council) certainly has much say in what becomes law. With many corporations set to profit from this, none more unobjective than the Corrections Corporation of America (and other privately owned and funded prisons), it begins to emerge that what’s happening is unfathomable; yet, it’s real. The clear link between hefty sentences and cashing in on incarcerating people comes to light.
Later, Clinton is seen in the documentary admitting that he made an error, but it’s too little and too late. The stirring up of populist hate-mongering has done the damage, and viewers begin to have things laid out. This is what was Donald Trump’s campaigners’ gold. They tapped into deep-rooted prejudices and got into power. They subsequently dismantled many of the policies that Obama brought in to try and bridge divides.
Other laws and social injustices explored include the “Stand your ground” law, which led to the death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman. What follows is further irrefutable evidence that if you’re black in America, particularly in certain states, you are at a massively higher risk of being killed, or being sent to prison. That’s not all. There’s a terribly high chance that if you do go to prison, you’ll die either by or via the system. A devastating example of the other element of inequality shown in this film, the “plea bargain” predicament, is Kaleif Browder’s death at the age of 22. It’s testament to so much that’s wrong. The stark and ugly truth is that these sectors of the overarching hierarchy do the exact opposite for so many than they’re meant to, which is to protect them and rehabilitate.
By the time this documentary is over, there’s a sinking feeling. This is why there’s riots and what’s causing them. Until these deeply engrained and entrenched moral atrocities are addressed fully and real change forced, they’ll continue to happen, because they have to. That’s what comes across, in light of watching this now. The very real alternative of what many black people feel will happen to them and their loved ones if they do nothing. They feel forced into action. Like the documentary itself, which can never illustrate the full extent of suffering, abuse, harassment and daily threats to black lives in the U.S., this review must also acknowledge that not all names of those who have either done what they can to help matters, and those who’ve paid the ultimate price, are highlighted, or had their memories honoured. Yet, if reading this helps one person to watch this important film, then a tiny difference can have been made – hopefully the start of a journey. It’s the series of tiny differences that make bigger ones, slowly but surely. In watching this, viewers get only a glimpse, but that glimpse can be enough to go on to read, watch and do more. There are many ways to help, both morally and practically. Get involved by educating yourself, listening and if you can donate to bail funds or other charities. Have conversations and get active. Watch this and learn, but take away more. We can’t keep doing nothing.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 11th June 2020
National Theatre Home Series: Coriolanus by William Shakespeare
One of his later works, Coriolanus tells the story of a man forced to change, who can’t. Very much a character study, the work is brought alive by Tom Hiddleston in the lead-role, supported by a variety of talent. This is fused with some inventive stage-work, make up and lighting, that captures the darker elements of the play. That aspect is sometimes perhaps missed, compared to the likes of McBeth. Whilst the death-count isn’t vast in this story, the character is steeped in a bloody and violent tradition. War is very much the backdrop to Coriolanus, in more than one way, too.
Taking on Shakespeare, whether having the responsibility of directing or playing a leading part, comes with huge pressure. Some of this is down to the stigma and shame associated with the expectation to know Shakespeare. It’s automatic, in some circles. Perhaps if you’re a serious stage actor then that’s fair, to some degree. Yet, for many people this is exactly what puts them off the great bard. Make no mistake, understanding Shakespeare’s language is hard. It was written at only the start of the English language as we know it today; also, much of it is poetry, too. That’s a tough combination.
Something that Tom Hiddleston sets up immediately is the emotional impact of his character, that others also show with a gravitas and commanding presence. When you first see him come onto the stage he is smeared in (fake) blood, and is behaving like someone who has just done battle and seen horrific things. That helps. A lot. In so many stage plays (maybe I am being a little harsh, and basing this on ones I saw at school – some of which were “safer” versions) there is little to suggest lived experiences of the characters. Only their voices. As the words are somewhat archaic and the language complex and strange-seeming, it’s hard to follow. Not here. Hiddleston utilises the stage, jutting around and letting the audience know when he’s irritable. You get a massive clue to his whole character, immediately.
Aufidius is Caius Martius’’ “Gothic other”, in some ways. Certainly, a duality is there. This isn’t exactly a fifty/fifty split, though. Hadley Fraser does well to play who is always the lesser of the two. A jealous sibling, maybe. This depiction shows a close-reading, as the emotions that begin to take over Aufidius are subtle, though crucial; crucial precisely because they’re subtle. Getting this wrong seriously risks harming the dynamic of the play, and the tension that’s so important when Caius Martius and Aufidius tussle. In their first fight scene, there’s no romp-style swashbuckling. The feel of the scene is violent and the stakes are sensed. These are men who deal and live in and around death. You know, vias their acting, that each has delivered a great amount of killing. Again, it’s crucial both characters get this right. They do. Hiddleston and Fraser know where they’re going with the characters. The interpreting of the play definitely is something that is evident. The narrative voice of Josie Rourke comes through. Yes, the cast are responsible for this, ultimately, but they’ve been asked to represent a certain type of mood and atmosphere. It’s a grown-up production, and one that leaves audiences in no doubt that this is a piece about the slow road to terror . . .
The two main women in this play both contribute to the overall feel of what’s playing out. Without the intensity of Deborah Findlay’s Volumnia, mother of Caius Martius, the way that her son behaves may not be as easily accepted. Certainly, Findlay manages to express how she’s cast him in her image. Her overly dramatic displays of devotion and command over him, show that. Not easy to provide anything that is on a level with Hiddleston, but Findlay does exactly that. One way that her depiction Volumnia really does manage to embody all the character truly is, is her reaction to her son, Caius Martius having the title of “Coriolanus” bestowed upon him. The essential element caught is that of the area laying somewhere between being competitively dutiful, and monster-maker. It’s that nuanced and specific realm that Findlay inhabits with skill and care. Her relationship with Virgillia also requires understanding; of course, that means on both sides. Whilst she isn’t in the story a great deal, Birgitte Hjort Sorenson knows to always remain the understudy to her step-mother. Yet, the human way is to challenge the established order, and her version of Virgillia does exactly that, showing that she knows she can’t win. It’s these deeply human qualities that the cast need to get, as Shakespeare is always loaded with conflict and contrasting emotional states. They do, fully realising them by their actions and delivery of dialogue. Their timing is always dead on the money, which really does show those shades of colour that Shakespeare wrote. Through those two women’s brilliant portrayal of power-play, they make you stop and look, again. It’s not just red you’re seeing. There’s the oranges and yellows, too. Fire is many colours, especially underneath. They know that Shakespeare knew that, and prove it.
Mark Gatiss slips into the role of Meneneus, as expected from a now time-served Thespian. Another performance that shows not only a deep knowledge of the character, but of Shakespeare generally. His is the tough role of devil’s advocate, and advisor to the newly crowned “Coriolanus”, the title that is bestowed on Caius Martius, when he wins a crucial victory against Aufidius and his Volsces. Gatiss has to always knows that no good can really come from demanding that the best soldier in the land becomes a representative of the people. He does. Something that Gatiss is able to show the audience brilliantly is the psychological side of the character, specifically the ability to influence such a strong mind as the title character, a man who very much knows who he is and won’t be told very much at all, by anyone.
The two tribunes of the people, Brutus and Sicinia are played by Elliot Levey and Helen Schleisinger, respectively. Their duality is a thing of its own, and something else that is important. Both are opposed to the manner of Coriolanus, and his unwillingness to bend his will at all, or show humility to whom he deems his lesser. The two differ, however. Levey’s Brutus is always trying to overrule and convince Schleisinger’s Sicinia that he knows best. The two get the squabbling just right, which is important to the sense of tension; both actors knows that their characters have a critical role in the proceedings, and ultimate outcome. Further evidence that this cast knows exactly what they’re being asked to do and more importantly, how to achieve it.
There are many things that make this production a memorable one. The make-up and props are spare, and therefore powerful, only being used occasionally to add impact. An inspired use of the stage area, at times, contributes, too. Some actors sit “outside” of the stage, at the back, dimmed by he dark. They can see and hear what’s going on, and this gives a powerful effect of what’s been played out by those in the scene also being in their imagination. A sense of life to the characters – especially true of Hiddleston’s Caius Martius Coriolanus – even when they aren’t in the action. As identified, a tacit and informed knowledge of who these characters are, their motivations, personalities and foibles; faults and flaws, too. The latter elements are vital to show, and the cast do. It’s the fusion of these aspects that really works, making each separate component the seamless clockwork of it all.
A brilliant cast contribute, but this is very much Hiddleston’s show. He must surely be remembered as an explosive version of a powerfully written character. Even though this isn’t a contemporary telling in the sense of setting, Hiddleston makes the character relevant again, showing everyone how internal conflict can soon take hold and begin to unravel you. No matter how strong a will you have; sometimes, exactly because of its inability to bend and flex. The horror of the inner torment, that becomes the character’s life, is brought to the centre of the action, by Hiddleston. The violence in the soldier’s life, too, and after effects. Ultimately, Hiddleston offers a look into the nature of person and what happens when you just can’t change, when society demands it. Something else that won’t be changing anytime soon is his status as master of his craft and ability to possess audiences. It’s performances like this that have led to him gaining more legions of fans than even the great numbers of the army this character fought for. Caius Martius Coriolanus may have struggled to gain the support of the people, but Hiddleston definitely doesn’t.
Coriolanus is available to watch free online until 11th June 2020
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 9th June 2020
Taking on Shakespeare, whether having the responsibility of directing or playing a leading part, comes with huge pressure. Some of this is down to the stigma and shame associated with the expectation to know Shakespeare. It’s automatic, in some circles. Perhaps if you’re a serious stage actor then that’s fair, to some degree. Yet, for many people this is exactly what puts them off the great bard. Make no mistake, understanding Shakespeare’s language is hard. It was written at only the start of the English language as we know it today; also, much of it is poetry, too. That’s a tough combination.
Something that Tom Hiddleston sets up immediately is the emotional impact of his character, that others also show with a gravitas and commanding presence. When you first see him come onto the stage he is smeared in (fake) blood, and is behaving like someone who has just done battle and seen horrific things. That helps. A lot. In so many stage plays (maybe I am being a little harsh, and basing this on ones I saw at school – some of which were “safer” versions) there is little to suggest lived experiences of the characters. Only their voices. As the words are somewhat archaic and the language complex and strange-seeming, it’s hard to follow. Not here. Hiddleston utilises the stage, jutting around and letting the audience know when he’s irritable. You get a massive clue to his whole character, immediately.
Aufidius is Caius Martius’’ “Gothic other”, in some ways. Certainly, a duality is there. This isn’t exactly a fifty/fifty split, though. Hadley Fraser does well to play who is always the lesser of the two. A jealous sibling, maybe. This depiction shows a close-reading, as the emotions that begin to take over Aufidius are subtle, though crucial; crucial precisely because they’re subtle. Getting this wrong seriously risks harming the dynamic of the play, and the tension that’s so important when Caius Martius and Aufidius tussle. In their first fight scene, there’s no romp-style swashbuckling. The feel of the scene is violent and the stakes are sensed. These are men who deal and live in and around death. You know, vias their acting, that each has delivered a great amount of killing. Again, it’s crucial both characters get this right. They do. Hiddleston and Fraser know where they’re going with the characters. The interpreting of the play definitely is something that is evident. The narrative voice of Josie Rourke comes through. Yes, the cast are responsible for this, ultimately, but they’ve been asked to represent a certain type of mood and atmosphere. It’s a grown-up production, and one that leaves audiences in no doubt that this is a piece about the slow road to terror . . .
The two main women in this play both contribute to the overall feel of what’s playing out. Without the intensity of Deborah Findlay’s Volumnia, mother of Caius Martius, the way that her son behaves may not be as easily accepted. Certainly, Findlay manages to express how she’s cast him in her image. Her overly dramatic displays of devotion and command over him, show that. Not easy to provide anything that is on a level with Hiddleston, but Findlay does exactly that. One way that her depiction Volumnia really does manage to embody all the character truly is, is her reaction to her son, Caius Martius having the title of “Coriolanus” bestowed upon him. The essential element caught is that of the area laying somewhere between being competitively dutiful, and monster-maker. It’s that nuanced and specific realm that Findlay inhabits with skill and care. Her relationship with Virgillia also requires understanding; of course, that means on both sides. Whilst she isn’t in the story a great deal, Birgitte Hjort Sorenson knows to always remain the understudy to her step-mother. Yet, the human way is to challenge the established order, and her version of Virgillia does exactly that, showing that she knows she can’t win. It’s these deeply human qualities that the cast need to get, as Shakespeare is always loaded with conflict and contrasting emotional states. They do, fully realising them by their actions and delivery of dialogue. Their timing is always dead on the money, which really does show those shades of colour that Shakespeare wrote. Through those two women’s brilliant portrayal of power-play, they make you stop and look, again. It’s not just red you’re seeing. There’s the oranges and yellows, too. Fire is many colours, especially underneath. They know that Shakespeare knew that, and prove it.
Mark Gatiss slips into the role of Meneneus, as expected from a now time-served Thespian. Another performance that shows not only a deep knowledge of the character, but of Shakespeare generally. His is the tough role of devil’s advocate, and advisor to the newly crowned “Coriolanus”, the title that is bestowed on Caius Martius, when he wins a crucial victory against Aufidius and his Volsces. Gatiss has to always knows that no good can really come from demanding that the best soldier in the land becomes a representative of the people. He does. Something that Gatiss is able to show the audience brilliantly is the psychological side of the character, specifically the ability to influence such a strong mind as the title character, a man who very much knows who he is and won’t be told very much at all, by anyone.
The two tribunes of the people, Brutus and Sicinia are played by Elliot Levey and Helen Schleisinger, respectively. Their duality is a thing of its own, and something else that is important. Both are opposed to the manner of Coriolanus, and his unwillingness to bend his will at all, or show humility to whom he deems his lesser. The two differ, however. Levey’s Brutus is always trying to overrule and convince Schleisinger’s Sicinia that he knows best. The two get the squabbling just right, which is important to the sense of tension; both actors knows that their characters have a critical role in the proceedings, and ultimate outcome. Further evidence that this cast knows exactly what they’re being asked to do and more importantly, how to achieve it.
There are many things that make this production a memorable one. The make-up and props are spare, and therefore powerful, only being used occasionally to add impact. An inspired use of the stage area, at times, contributes, too. Some actors sit “outside” of the stage, at the back, dimmed by he dark. They can see and hear what’s going on, and this gives a powerful effect of what’s been played out by those in the scene also being in their imagination. A sense of life to the characters – especially true of Hiddleston’s Caius Martius Coriolanus – even when they aren’t in the action. As identified, a tacit and informed knowledge of who these characters are, their motivations, personalities and foibles; faults and flaws, too. The latter elements are vital to show, and the cast do. It’s the fusion of these aspects that really works, making each separate component the seamless clockwork of it all.
A brilliant cast contribute, but this is very much Hiddleston’s show. He must surely be remembered as an explosive version of a powerfully written character. Even though this isn’t a contemporary telling in the sense of setting, Hiddleston makes the character relevant again, showing everyone how internal conflict can soon take hold and begin to unravel you. No matter how strong a will you have; sometimes, exactly because of its inability to bend and flex. The horror of the inner torment, that becomes the character’s life, is brought to the centre of the action, by Hiddleston. The violence in the soldier’s life, too, and after effects. Ultimately, Hiddleston offers a look into the nature of person and what happens when you just can’t change, when society demands it. Something else that won’t be changing anytime soon is his status as master of his craft and ability to possess audiences. It’s performances like this that have led to him gaining more legions of fans than even the great numbers of the army this character fought for. Caius Martius Coriolanus may have struggled to gain the support of the people, but Hiddleston definitely doesn’t.
Coriolanus is available to watch free online until 11th June 2020
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 9th June 2020
National Theatre Home Series: This House by James Graham
James Graham’s This House began its run in 2012, and went on to become widely acclaimed. The performance was so well received that it was shifted to the Olivier Theatre. It had a five-month initial run, which is impressive in itself. That doesn’t happen often with theatre, as there are often so many other plays that are up and coming, and like with cinema, once they’ve had their run, that’s it for them. But something about this play resonated, and it just wouldn’t be seen and then go onto the long pile of “been and seen”. It became something much more.
Four years after the play was first performed, it was revived at the Minerva. Then, it went on to have a run in the West End. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if it gets a further run, too, once things go back to some semblance of normality. Perhaps, the subject matter is what’s responsible for this. That alone doesn’t guarantee anything, though. Possibly James Graham choosing it what made it so crucial and urgent, despite him being only a child during the last few years reign on Margaret Thatcher. Conversely, it might be exactly that which led to him writing it. An attempt to understand what led to the events which would go on to shape his future, and indeed our entire nation.
The play opens with a busy stage, set out as the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House is demanding “order, order”. Immediately the poetry of the play is apparent. The story is set in the middle of the 1970s, when the share of the vote between the two U.K. parties was marginal. Following the February 1974 election, that resulted in Labour winning only four more votes than the Conservative Party. Harold Wilson and co. muddled through, declaring another “early election that September. Whilst the reasons were very different (widespread industrial action, most prominently by the N.U.M. – the National Union of Miners), the political landscape was startlingly similar to that of the U.K before the last election. There being more than one election in less than a five-year period is the point of contrast. As with the last few years in the U.K., there was a prominent environment of unease and a sense of huge, sweeping changes coming. Graham Surely knows this, and thus chose to open proceedings with an example of physical disarray.
Another poetic trope is the concrete imagery of time, via the broken clockwork of Big Ben (yes, that’s only the largest bell, but it’s safe to say the whole world knows the striking clock of the Palace of Westminster by this nick-name). That works particularly well, especially considering that the play’s end culminates with Thatcher’s arrival as Prime Minister. One era is winding down, and another is on the way in. There is nothing that can be done to stop that, or change it, and Graham utilises this idea. In some ways this is an extremely modern History play. Considering how little time there is to have digested the events, and that he didn’t live through them himself, this is a bold move and Graham deserves credit for attempting that. He succeeds too, announcing his skill. He proves that art and literature are critical in the telling of history. This is precisely because they’re subjective. Though that’s true Graham does manage to keep the required distance from the work, allowing it to speak for itself first, and him second. The cast do him proud, too.
Phil Daniels plays Bob Mellish, who was the chief whip of the Labour party from 1969 through to 1976. He encompasses the “working man’s” politicians (of course this very concept is dated now, and it would simply translate to “working class”) of the day. Daniels swears, gets physically agitated at times and helps to make the differences between the two parties so apparent, without descending into a simple caricature of a generic Labour M.P. His role in the play is essential, as he is chief-negotiator to his counterpart, Humphrey Atkins, played by Julian Wadham. The two men help to create a sense of tension, as the various deals they make will determine who gets to pass the laws, and who gets to disrupt or at least delay the process. Wadham also manages to capture the essence of what everyone expects from a stereotypical Tory, yet renders his own personality into the character, too. These careful portrayals give just enough to offer the all-important familiarity of one being “like us” and the other being “posh”. Not easy to get this contrast whilst maintaining some semblance of plausibility. Both actors are clearly enjoying themselves here, and they work wonderfully as an opposing double-act.
Other important appearances are that of Lauren O’Neil’s Ann Taylor, who plays what was then a “token woman”. O’Neil easily gets into part of having men swear around her, and them apologise for offending her sensibilities. It’s only seeing this happen now that the true awkwardness and extent that women were kept separate from politics, generally, and deemed unsuited to partake in the running of the country. She’s joined by Helena Lymbery, portraying Audrey Wise. Wise showed that women can very much think for themselves, as she chose to vote on her own conscience, refusing to toe the party line. Whilst neither of these roles are central to the story, or have the same screen time for their male counterparts (for obvious reasons), their inclusion is a devastating reminder of the status of women, both then and now. Politics is still very much a male dominated arena. This shows exactly that, in a spare and cutting way. It’s precisely their lack of stage-time and dialogue that work to show the damages caused by exclusion, how for women it happens so insidiously, so much so it becomes normalised. Graham’s point is made subtly, and perhaps that it may go missed by some is all the more telling. Clever stuff. Important, too.
Reece Dinsdale, Vincent Franklin, David Hounslow, Charles Edwards, Ed Hughes, Gunnar Cauthery, Christopher Godwin, Andrew Havill, Matthew Pidgeon, Giles Taylor, Tony Turner, Rupert Vansittart and others (ensemble cast) all chip in to make a memorable production of a play that flirts with comedy, but is better described as one man’s attempt to try and give a dramatic example of what led to the rise of Margaret Thatcher. The very act of writing this play must surely also be an attempt to make sense of what it was like to grow up as a product of her ideals, and what might have been had Callaghan remained (I’m roughly the same age as him, and know only too well her legacy). Her dismantling of working-class culture, and so many other assaults on all those who wouldn’t buy into what she demanded left gaping holes that have never been filled. Her reign is still the defining element of the modern age of Britain, having installed deeply-embedded socio-economic changes, that are almost certainly irreversible. Yet, it must be said that she ushered in a new age for female politics, and that’s an important message of the play, too. The damage men do, by the games they play, so easily dealing in the lives of others. We should all be grateful we have the likes of Graham to illustrate this, just as the greats have always done. He’s created an entertaining history lesson that leads to you many complex questions, just as it should. Graham knows he can’t answer them for you. He’s done his job. He’s asked.
This House is available to watch free online until 4th June 2020!
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published 3rd June 2020
Four years after the play was first performed, it was revived at the Minerva. Then, it went on to have a run in the West End. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if it gets a further run, too, once things go back to some semblance of normality. Perhaps, the subject matter is what’s responsible for this. That alone doesn’t guarantee anything, though. Possibly James Graham choosing it what made it so crucial and urgent, despite him being only a child during the last few years reign on Margaret Thatcher. Conversely, it might be exactly that which led to him writing it. An attempt to understand what led to the events which would go on to shape his future, and indeed our entire nation.
The play opens with a busy stage, set out as the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House is demanding “order, order”. Immediately the poetry of the play is apparent. The story is set in the middle of the 1970s, when the share of the vote between the two U.K. parties was marginal. Following the February 1974 election, that resulted in Labour winning only four more votes than the Conservative Party. Harold Wilson and co. muddled through, declaring another “early election that September. Whilst the reasons were very different (widespread industrial action, most prominently by the N.U.M. – the National Union of Miners), the political landscape was startlingly similar to that of the U.K before the last election. There being more than one election in less than a five-year period is the point of contrast. As with the last few years in the U.K., there was a prominent environment of unease and a sense of huge, sweeping changes coming. Graham Surely knows this, and thus chose to open proceedings with an example of physical disarray.
Another poetic trope is the concrete imagery of time, via the broken clockwork of Big Ben (yes, that’s only the largest bell, but it’s safe to say the whole world knows the striking clock of the Palace of Westminster by this nick-name). That works particularly well, especially considering that the play’s end culminates with Thatcher’s arrival as Prime Minister. One era is winding down, and another is on the way in. There is nothing that can be done to stop that, or change it, and Graham utilises this idea. In some ways this is an extremely modern History play. Considering how little time there is to have digested the events, and that he didn’t live through them himself, this is a bold move and Graham deserves credit for attempting that. He succeeds too, announcing his skill. He proves that art and literature are critical in the telling of history. This is precisely because they’re subjective. Though that’s true Graham does manage to keep the required distance from the work, allowing it to speak for itself first, and him second. The cast do him proud, too.
Phil Daniels plays Bob Mellish, who was the chief whip of the Labour party from 1969 through to 1976. He encompasses the “working man’s” politicians (of course this very concept is dated now, and it would simply translate to “working class”) of the day. Daniels swears, gets physically agitated at times and helps to make the differences between the two parties so apparent, without descending into a simple caricature of a generic Labour M.P. His role in the play is essential, as he is chief-negotiator to his counterpart, Humphrey Atkins, played by Julian Wadham. The two men help to create a sense of tension, as the various deals they make will determine who gets to pass the laws, and who gets to disrupt or at least delay the process. Wadham also manages to capture the essence of what everyone expects from a stereotypical Tory, yet renders his own personality into the character, too. These careful portrayals give just enough to offer the all-important familiarity of one being “like us” and the other being “posh”. Not easy to get this contrast whilst maintaining some semblance of plausibility. Both actors are clearly enjoying themselves here, and they work wonderfully as an opposing double-act.
Other important appearances are that of Lauren O’Neil’s Ann Taylor, who plays what was then a “token woman”. O’Neil easily gets into part of having men swear around her, and them apologise for offending her sensibilities. It’s only seeing this happen now that the true awkwardness and extent that women were kept separate from politics, generally, and deemed unsuited to partake in the running of the country. She’s joined by Helena Lymbery, portraying Audrey Wise. Wise showed that women can very much think for themselves, as she chose to vote on her own conscience, refusing to toe the party line. Whilst neither of these roles are central to the story, or have the same screen time for their male counterparts (for obvious reasons), their inclusion is a devastating reminder of the status of women, both then and now. Politics is still very much a male dominated arena. This shows exactly that, in a spare and cutting way. It’s precisely their lack of stage-time and dialogue that work to show the damages caused by exclusion, how for women it happens so insidiously, so much so it becomes normalised. Graham’s point is made subtly, and perhaps that it may go missed by some is all the more telling. Clever stuff. Important, too.
Reece Dinsdale, Vincent Franklin, David Hounslow, Charles Edwards, Ed Hughes, Gunnar Cauthery, Christopher Godwin, Andrew Havill, Matthew Pidgeon, Giles Taylor, Tony Turner, Rupert Vansittart and others (ensemble cast) all chip in to make a memorable production of a play that flirts with comedy, but is better described as one man’s attempt to try and give a dramatic example of what led to the rise of Margaret Thatcher. The very act of writing this play must surely also be an attempt to make sense of what it was like to grow up as a product of her ideals, and what might have been had Callaghan remained (I’m roughly the same age as him, and know only too well her legacy). Her dismantling of working-class culture, and so many other assaults on all those who wouldn’t buy into what she demanded left gaping holes that have never been filled. Her reign is still the defining element of the modern age of Britain, having installed deeply-embedded socio-economic changes, that are almost certainly irreversible. Yet, it must be said that she ushered in a new age for female politics, and that’s an important message of the play, too. The damage men do, by the games they play, so easily dealing in the lives of others. We should all be grateful we have the likes of Graham to illustrate this, just as the greats have always done. He’s created an entertaining history lesson that leads to you many complex questions, just as it should. Graham knows he can’t answer them for you. He’s done his job. He’s asked.
This House is available to watch free online until 4th June 2020!
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published 3rd June 2020
Movie Review: Aftermath (2017)
CURRENTLY NUMBER 8 ON NETFLIX MOST WATCHED IN U.K.
Lately, Netflix has seen Aftermath (2017) draw much attention by viewers. It’s been at various points in the top 10 most viewed films, for a week or more. With no trips to the cinema, this top ten has become the new box-office, in a way. Likely more and people are using Netflix and other streaming services, which provide welcome and much-needed escapism during the current socio-economic climate. What’s novel about this set-up is that these movies have already been out. Some had a run at cinemas, globally; others are “in-house” productions by Netflix, either newly released or a few years old (some more). They’re a mixed-bunch.
Having had a quick look at the blurb, I decided on Aftermath. I’m a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, or “Arnie” flicks. I grew up on the likes of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), Last Action Hero (1993) and a host of others. I was around ten at the time. When I was a little older, I got to see him in his earlier roles, more violent and gritty films like The Terminator (1984) and Predator (1987). This movie said it was about a man seeking revenge for the death of his wife and son. It was quite different than I expected.
The film begins with Schwarzenegger’s character, Roman Melnyk, waiting for the arrival of his wife and pregnant daughter, from New York. He’s in Columbus, Ohio and is keen to have them home with him, especially as he is due to become a grandparent. Straight off, this is a different Arnie than we’ve seen before. Yes, he’s done mores diverse roles in the past, with comedy, and even a recent “humanity in development” portrayal in Terminator: Dark Fate (2019), but this is something altogether different. He’s just an average-joe, an everyman who is excited to see his loved ones.
After enquiring upon the arrival, as the plane is delayed, Roman is taken to a small office. A liaison officer informs him that there’s been a terrible accident and whilst there are few details, it’s unlikely that there are any survivors. He should prepare himself for the worst, he’s told. Schwarzenegger really shows how far he’s come, now. The look on his face manages to geta across a multitude of emotions. His physical acting skills have undergone a transition and the range he is capable of is impressive. He manages to convey initial disbelief, then shock and utter numbness as it slowly sinks in. It’s clear to see that he is processing the fact that he has lost absolutely everything. He fills the moment and the screen. No heroics or bursting into action for this character, just the grim. knowledge of this new reality. His world, crumbling before him.
In a shifting of the narrative, the scene changes to an air-traffic control room. The word Jacob comes up. The events prior to the incident are told, and following a combination of human error and a failure of non-essential (though that later becomes questionable) equipment, Jacob watches in horror as two planes vanish from the radar. He knows instantly, and that’s important. The actor and the writers must surely realise that. It’s as if he’s depicting that rare phenomenon that occurs. A feeling that just has to be true. Perhaps his experience tells him that a collision at that altitude, at that speed means no hope for any survivors. Those things aren’t what come across though, it’s the instant recognition, as if he has a temporary psychic power. He doesn’t question it, and as a viewer you don’t. He just knows . . . so, viewers just know, too. They’re all dead.
Later, at home, Jacob breaks down. His wife comforts him. Scoot McNairy gives a solid performance, depicting an extreme version of survivor guilt, and the consequent slide into despair and depression. His experiences are plausible and for those who have ever experienced depression (regardless of why) they’ll appear painfully familiar. He’s trapped within himself. The effects begin to take their toll on his family life, too. That’s tough-viewing, and again Maggie Grace as his wife, Christina, and Judah Nelson as his son, Samuel, really place the scenario in the realm of a painful believability. His company make it clear that he’s to be the fall guy. Whether it was or not, at least if he was wholly culpable, it wasn’t really clear in the film. That could have been dealt with better, but it wasn’t really what the film was about. Considering it is only around 90-minutes long, perhaps there simply wasn’t time. Eventually, Jacob moves away, and is offered a new identity by his firm. He does this to protect his family, possibly from himself as much as the media storm and local mobs that daub his home in graffiti. What’s striking is the power of corporations, to be able to do offer him this, and to deflect from their reputation, too.
Back with Roman, he too is simply going through the motions of existing, not really living. He is a man with nothing left. After he goes to volunteer at the crash-site, he finds a piece of jewellery that was a gift to his daughter. We see her receive it and wear it on an old video. That’s another realistic trope, and a way to show Roman’s inability to let go. He continues to watch it, as anyone likely would. No, Schwarzenegger isn’t going to be up for an Academy Award, but it’s interesting to see how much he’s developed his craft. He really gets across the simple, repetitive acts that make his state of mind able to empathised with.
A reporter turns up at Roman’s door and informs him she is writing a book on the crash. Roman ignores her, and won’t let her in. She sees him through the window and shouts that she only wants to uncover the truth. She posts through his letterbox some of her previous work. Only after having his own meeting with the airline, Roman decides to see her. During his meeting with the lawyers of the airline, Roman is offered financial compensation, his medical (psychiatric and counselling) bills paid and other “perks”. In a devastating brief speech, he says that he would first simply like an apology. Nobody has said sorry to him. He wields a photograph of his dead family, and demands it be seen. Again, this puts a truly human face on grief, and Schwarzenegger pulls it off with care and tenderness. There’s more subtext of the power of corporations, and the suggestion seems to be that an apology means accepting legal responsibility. Additionally, when he’s offered the money, he’s strongly advised to take it, as for “someone like him”, the offer is generous. It’s clear that the airline value him and his family as lesser lives, due to their nationality.
Whether it’s the following day, or a few days later, Roman seeks out the Reporter. He convinces her to give him the address of the person who he deems to be responsible. Jacob, who is now living as Pat. That’s where things really turn. Desperate, Roman visits Pat’s address. Pat is just beginning to repair is marriage, and Christina and Samuel are visiting. There are some good emotional scenes, that really capture how people are, following distance. It’s here that the finale of the film begins, which is quite a lengthy one, but it does work. The tension has been set up and now the release comes . . .
With its sensitive portrayals (the film is loosely based on the real 2002 Uberlingen mid-air collision) and tight timing, this film fuses various perspective and the cost of human grief. The barely-veiled examples of corporate America might also be seen to extend as conceits that cover a multitude of sins. Not one to watch if you’re after a typical Arnie romp, but if you want to see what he’s capable of doing when he wants to, this one is well worth a watch.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 2nd June 2020
Lately, Netflix has seen Aftermath (2017) draw much attention by viewers. It’s been at various points in the top 10 most viewed films, for a week or more. With no trips to the cinema, this top ten has become the new box-office, in a way. Likely more and people are using Netflix and other streaming services, which provide welcome and much-needed escapism during the current socio-economic climate. What’s novel about this set-up is that these movies have already been out. Some had a run at cinemas, globally; others are “in-house” productions by Netflix, either newly released or a few years old (some more). They’re a mixed-bunch.
Having had a quick look at the blurb, I decided on Aftermath. I’m a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, or “Arnie” flicks. I grew up on the likes of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), Last Action Hero (1993) and a host of others. I was around ten at the time. When I was a little older, I got to see him in his earlier roles, more violent and gritty films like The Terminator (1984) and Predator (1987). This movie said it was about a man seeking revenge for the death of his wife and son. It was quite different than I expected.
The film begins with Schwarzenegger’s character, Roman Melnyk, waiting for the arrival of his wife and pregnant daughter, from New York. He’s in Columbus, Ohio and is keen to have them home with him, especially as he is due to become a grandparent. Straight off, this is a different Arnie than we’ve seen before. Yes, he’s done mores diverse roles in the past, with comedy, and even a recent “humanity in development” portrayal in Terminator: Dark Fate (2019), but this is something altogether different. He’s just an average-joe, an everyman who is excited to see his loved ones.
After enquiring upon the arrival, as the plane is delayed, Roman is taken to a small office. A liaison officer informs him that there’s been a terrible accident and whilst there are few details, it’s unlikely that there are any survivors. He should prepare himself for the worst, he’s told. Schwarzenegger really shows how far he’s come, now. The look on his face manages to geta across a multitude of emotions. His physical acting skills have undergone a transition and the range he is capable of is impressive. He manages to convey initial disbelief, then shock and utter numbness as it slowly sinks in. It’s clear to see that he is processing the fact that he has lost absolutely everything. He fills the moment and the screen. No heroics or bursting into action for this character, just the grim. knowledge of this new reality. His world, crumbling before him.
In a shifting of the narrative, the scene changes to an air-traffic control room. The word Jacob comes up. The events prior to the incident are told, and following a combination of human error and a failure of non-essential (though that later becomes questionable) equipment, Jacob watches in horror as two planes vanish from the radar. He knows instantly, and that’s important. The actor and the writers must surely realise that. It’s as if he’s depicting that rare phenomenon that occurs. A feeling that just has to be true. Perhaps his experience tells him that a collision at that altitude, at that speed means no hope for any survivors. Those things aren’t what come across though, it’s the instant recognition, as if he has a temporary psychic power. He doesn’t question it, and as a viewer you don’t. He just knows . . . so, viewers just know, too. They’re all dead.
Later, at home, Jacob breaks down. His wife comforts him. Scoot McNairy gives a solid performance, depicting an extreme version of survivor guilt, and the consequent slide into despair and depression. His experiences are plausible and for those who have ever experienced depression (regardless of why) they’ll appear painfully familiar. He’s trapped within himself. The effects begin to take their toll on his family life, too. That’s tough-viewing, and again Maggie Grace as his wife, Christina, and Judah Nelson as his son, Samuel, really place the scenario in the realm of a painful believability. His company make it clear that he’s to be the fall guy. Whether it was or not, at least if he was wholly culpable, it wasn’t really clear in the film. That could have been dealt with better, but it wasn’t really what the film was about. Considering it is only around 90-minutes long, perhaps there simply wasn’t time. Eventually, Jacob moves away, and is offered a new identity by his firm. He does this to protect his family, possibly from himself as much as the media storm and local mobs that daub his home in graffiti. What’s striking is the power of corporations, to be able to do offer him this, and to deflect from their reputation, too.
Back with Roman, he too is simply going through the motions of existing, not really living. He is a man with nothing left. After he goes to volunteer at the crash-site, he finds a piece of jewellery that was a gift to his daughter. We see her receive it and wear it on an old video. That’s another realistic trope, and a way to show Roman’s inability to let go. He continues to watch it, as anyone likely would. No, Schwarzenegger isn’t going to be up for an Academy Award, but it’s interesting to see how much he’s developed his craft. He really gets across the simple, repetitive acts that make his state of mind able to empathised with.
A reporter turns up at Roman’s door and informs him she is writing a book on the crash. Roman ignores her, and won’t let her in. She sees him through the window and shouts that she only wants to uncover the truth. She posts through his letterbox some of her previous work. Only after having his own meeting with the airline, Roman decides to see her. During his meeting with the lawyers of the airline, Roman is offered financial compensation, his medical (psychiatric and counselling) bills paid and other “perks”. In a devastating brief speech, he says that he would first simply like an apology. Nobody has said sorry to him. He wields a photograph of his dead family, and demands it be seen. Again, this puts a truly human face on grief, and Schwarzenegger pulls it off with care and tenderness. There’s more subtext of the power of corporations, and the suggestion seems to be that an apology means accepting legal responsibility. Additionally, when he’s offered the money, he’s strongly advised to take it, as for “someone like him”, the offer is generous. It’s clear that the airline value him and his family as lesser lives, due to their nationality.
Whether it’s the following day, or a few days later, Roman seeks out the Reporter. He convinces her to give him the address of the person who he deems to be responsible. Jacob, who is now living as Pat. That’s where things really turn. Desperate, Roman visits Pat’s address. Pat is just beginning to repair is marriage, and Christina and Samuel are visiting. There are some good emotional scenes, that really capture how people are, following distance. It’s here that the finale of the film begins, which is quite a lengthy one, but it does work. The tension has been set up and now the release comes . . .
With its sensitive portrayals (the film is loosely based on the real 2002 Uberlingen mid-air collision) and tight timing, this film fuses various perspective and the cost of human grief. The barely-veiled examples of corporate America might also be seen to extend as conceits that cover a multitude of sins. Not one to watch if you’re after a typical Arnie romp, but if you want to see what he’s capable of doing when he wants to, this one is well worth a watch.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 2nd June 2020
National Theatre Home Series: A Street Car Named Desire By Twnnessee Williams
Tennessee Williams’s 1947 play A Streetcar Named Desire has remained one of the most powerful pieces to perform, in modern theatre, since its very first appeared on Broadway. With themes about life behind closed doors, roles of masculinity and femininity, the play seems to ask questions that so often go unasked; it’s only in watching it that we think of our own lives afterwards, and even then, few of us really spend much time really drilling down for answers. Perhaps we’re scared of the answers we’ll find, that if we pull on that thread then we’ll begin to unravel completely. Certainly, that’s what happens to Blanche Dubois; it’s through her that the process may “infect” us.
In 2014 the Young Vic Theatre, on London’s South Bank, staged a performance of A Streetcar Named Desire. It boasted a “big name”, in Gillian Anderson as the star of the show, Blanche Dubois. The play was live-streamed to cinemas across the U.K. during its run, such was the popularity of it. After watching the production, it’s clear why it was so popular, and why Anderson did much, much more than just turn up and be the big name . . .
**TRIGGER WARNING. THIS REVIEWS INCLUDES DISCUSSION OF DEPICTIONS OF ABUSE, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY. THIS INCLUDES SCENES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE, WHICH SOME READERS MAY FIND DISTURBING**
Like many plays, stagecraft is often crucial to get right. Playwrights go to strenuous efforts to make their intentions known, in stage directions, and are as exacting as poets are, in the choices that they make, with the intention of bringing about specific effects. These help to add to the mood and overall feel of things. With this in mind, the stagecraft chosen for this production was smart, and sparse. The interior of an apartment was made on stage, where the majority of the action took place. Things were far enough apart so that the actors could glide about, but the set itself was small enough to give off the all-important feelings of compartmentalisation and claustrophobia.
When Blanche Dubois arrives, things is this play really start to get going. Gillian Anderson in the role took no time at all to establish herself as the central character. Her voice was gratingly irritating, but in a way that worked. She captured the barely-hidden desperation of Blanche, who is very much on a downward spiral. The character has a complex nature, and Anderson seemed to be able to tap in to that, switching between self-appointed victim and narcissistic liar. Immediately, Anderson made sure that Blanche installed the sense of power over her sister, Stella (played by Vanessa Kirby), that is so important for the dynamic of the play, and for Blanche’s increasingly dramatic relationship with her sister’s husband, Stanley Kowalski (Ben Foster).
Before he makes his entrance into the proceedings, Stanley’s character is “built up”, by Stella’s talking of him with reverence and passion. This is an important thing to get right, for numerous reasons. Stella is besotted with her husband, and this shows that; her talking of him as good is wonderfully contrasted by her warning to Stella not to upset him. There is foreshadowing of Stella as being entirely ruled by her own bias (later she shows that she can’t see that he won’t ever change), and Kirby knows this of the character, portraying this trait skilfully. Additionally, as mentioned, the impact Stanley makes gives his eventual entry a further gravitas, as Stella pushes her wholly subjective view of him onto Blanche; the nuances of these two characters are expressed with clarity. Kirby shows that Stella must knows Blanche won’t like Stanley one bit. It’s touches like this that really deserve credit, as an actor reveals the depths they’ve gone to, to know the character’s personality.
Enter Stanley, the very epitome of the over-egged masculine ego, if ever there was one. It’s unfair to compare this versions Stanley, Ben Foster, with Marlon Brando, as Brando was the original and nobody has ever come close to his portrayal. He was the archetype. Foster’s take is a more cerebral bully, relying on a psychological element of Stanley’s sinister nature. Foster doesn’t quite establish himself with the same on-screen physicality that Anderson’s Blanche possesses. That’s a shame, as it’s an absolute requirement to the dynamic between the two, who are crucial to the play’s palpable tension. It’s not that he simply isn’t Brando; as stated, that would be unfair and a cheap shot. The issue is that he can’t compete with Anderson, and he has to be able to. He does well in showing his softer side to his wife, and the vulnerability that is only barely hidden beneath the surface, but when it comes to him playing the all-important partner in the many sparring matches between Blanche and Stanley. Possibly this is a little unfair, as it would take some doing to match Anderson’s scintillating and exhilarating performance. Still, Foster is the weak link of the three performances that get most stage-time and dialogue.
As a character, Stella is very much the poor relation, in as much as she isn’t at the forefront of the unfolding drama of events in this story. That said, it takes the delicately applied ability of someone such as Kirby to make this what helps to make things tick. Stella’s performance is key, as if it is too intense then things begin to fall apart quite quickly. Deliberately ensuring a character of secondary importance remains just that is no easy ask. Kirby manages to maintain a meekness throughout, that is what the character demands. It takes some skill and talent to maintain an applied, understated aspect to a character for almost three-hours. Fortunately, Kirby rises to the challenge and is always the glue between the three; what Kirby achieves is portraying the stresses that such a role plays in grinding down a person. She is well and truly caught between a rock and a hard place, and that’s where Kirby’s talents lie. She knows this and gives the audience a vivid and charged performance, proving it.
Corey Johnson gives a decent performance, as Mitch. Mitch is the only other character to get stage-time and dialogue, other than the triumvirate of Blanche, Stanley and Stella. What Johnson does is show that even when it was frowned upon, there were men who weren’t Stanley Kowalski; at least they didn’t appear to be on the surface. Johnson offsets his physicality (he’s the largest and most powerful of the men in the show) with a depiction of an at first gentle-giant. He declares himself as a damaged soul, and suggests that him and Blanche could be a fix, for one another. Yet, upon discovering that Blanche is less than perfect, Mitch quickly turns. What Johnson’s performance does is highlight that for almost all women at the time (and indeed still today, largely believed to be to a lesser extent, but perhaps not the case) in America (and the Western World generally), their status was decided by men, who got to ascribe certain behaviours to them, and fix labels that defined their lives. Johnson identifies this in Mitch, and again highlights that what people see on the outside isn’t always what goes on behind closed-doors. And now we get to that scene.
As a white male, and therefore someone with degrees of privilege and socially installed and biased “rank,” I find myself entirely unqualified to offer any meaningful insight to the multi-faceted and ever-prevalent issue of sexual-violence towards women; however, I acknowledge that not talking about it is also detrimental. The issue needs talking about, in detail and as often as possible – but not by those who haven’t experienced such horrors, who are lucky enough to never have to understand. I am blessed to be in that category, being fully aware that so many women are cursed not to be. With this is mind, from here on in I accept full responsibility in choosing to lean towards the latter category of mere commentator, trying to remain informed, but accepting my limits. I may fail and apologise in advance if that’s the case. I’d rather state this, and welcome being told what I ought to have said, and learn from and through opinions and experiences women talk about, than claim to have a fair perspective, or lo and behold one that supersedes them. The following scene analysis and discussion of it in the context of today’s society is unapologetically governed towards exposing why this horrific part of the story is very much relevant today. As stated, as much as possible, I have attempted to veer away from personal opinion, and remain focused on the function of the graphic scene in the play.
In the original play, what happens to Blanche in scene ten is not expressly stated. That may be more telling of the audience than it was on Williams. The assumption of what Stanley did to her was never in doubt. In 1947 this sort of behaviour went much less frowned upon, especially when the victim is a woman in the midst of a mental breakdown. All of her agency was removed, and perhaps that’s the point that Williams was trying to make: Stanley will be believed. Yet, strongly suggesting what does happen doesn’t always give the effect of making the fact it goes unnoticed get noticed, which is absolutely necessary today. That’s what was really needed in this version. Maybe, if the show was performed following the successful conviction of Harvey Weinstein, after the #MeToo movement began to take hold, this scene would have been done very differently. Probably, it should have been. The handling of the scene is often what’s problematic; simply calling it a problematic scene removes any responsibility for choices to be made by a modern Director.
There’s no real accolade for the Director here, as this isn’t a clever re-imagining or contemporary take, per say. Overall, this play belongs to Anderson. Kirby also shines, though it’s Anderson depicting gradual descent into madness and despair that wins, here. She truly shows how vulnerable people still slip through the net, by her handling of the character bringing the many themes of the show back up to the surface. They are eternally relevant, as Williams wrote a dramatic treatise on the behaviours of humans, and how our society judges, measures and delivers certain ideals that some can’t, not won’t, abide by. The presentations of Blanche, and Kirby’s treatment of a bullied-woman are the magic that show this, and that’s apt. The biggest take-home is that women were treated as second-class citizens then, and so much of the mistreatment they suffered went unreported. Today the issue is deemed to be much more reported and as a result, “dealt with better”, with supposedly fewer women in less danger. The reality is often very different. So much of what did happen still does. To be woman today (just speak to one and ask, then listen, not arguing) still means many aspects of your life are unequal, and your agency, status and societal treatment are still overly scrutinised, and as a result large parts of your perceived identity get decided for you.
Now, the National Theatre (although the Young Vic is a separate entity) is uploading one of play to YouTube each week, as people are madly missing live theatre. They are asking people who watch these productions, and are able to, to donate what they can afford. Theatres are currently crippled, financially, due to the lockdown imposed owing to the Covid 19 pandemic. This is as close as we can get, currently, to seeing a live-show. If we can, let’s give a few quid to say thanks and keep these incredible institutions afloat. Hopefully it won’t be too long before we can again enjoy the majesty of live-theatre.
You can find out more about National Theatre Home here!
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 29th May 2020
In 2014 the Young Vic Theatre, on London’s South Bank, staged a performance of A Streetcar Named Desire. It boasted a “big name”, in Gillian Anderson as the star of the show, Blanche Dubois. The play was live-streamed to cinemas across the U.K. during its run, such was the popularity of it. After watching the production, it’s clear why it was so popular, and why Anderson did much, much more than just turn up and be the big name . . .
**TRIGGER WARNING. THIS REVIEWS INCLUDES DISCUSSION OF DEPICTIONS OF ABUSE, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY. THIS INCLUDES SCENES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE, WHICH SOME READERS MAY FIND DISTURBING**
Like many plays, stagecraft is often crucial to get right. Playwrights go to strenuous efforts to make their intentions known, in stage directions, and are as exacting as poets are, in the choices that they make, with the intention of bringing about specific effects. These help to add to the mood and overall feel of things. With this in mind, the stagecraft chosen for this production was smart, and sparse. The interior of an apartment was made on stage, where the majority of the action took place. Things were far enough apart so that the actors could glide about, but the set itself was small enough to give off the all-important feelings of compartmentalisation and claustrophobia.
When Blanche Dubois arrives, things is this play really start to get going. Gillian Anderson in the role took no time at all to establish herself as the central character. Her voice was gratingly irritating, but in a way that worked. She captured the barely-hidden desperation of Blanche, who is very much on a downward spiral. The character has a complex nature, and Anderson seemed to be able to tap in to that, switching between self-appointed victim and narcissistic liar. Immediately, Anderson made sure that Blanche installed the sense of power over her sister, Stella (played by Vanessa Kirby), that is so important for the dynamic of the play, and for Blanche’s increasingly dramatic relationship with her sister’s husband, Stanley Kowalski (Ben Foster).
Before he makes his entrance into the proceedings, Stanley’s character is “built up”, by Stella’s talking of him with reverence and passion. This is an important thing to get right, for numerous reasons. Stella is besotted with her husband, and this shows that; her talking of him as good is wonderfully contrasted by her warning to Stella not to upset him. There is foreshadowing of Stella as being entirely ruled by her own bias (later she shows that she can’t see that he won’t ever change), and Kirby knows this of the character, portraying this trait skilfully. Additionally, as mentioned, the impact Stanley makes gives his eventual entry a further gravitas, as Stella pushes her wholly subjective view of him onto Blanche; the nuances of these two characters are expressed with clarity. Kirby shows that Stella must knows Blanche won’t like Stanley one bit. It’s touches like this that really deserve credit, as an actor reveals the depths they’ve gone to, to know the character’s personality.
Enter Stanley, the very epitome of the over-egged masculine ego, if ever there was one. It’s unfair to compare this versions Stanley, Ben Foster, with Marlon Brando, as Brando was the original and nobody has ever come close to his portrayal. He was the archetype. Foster’s take is a more cerebral bully, relying on a psychological element of Stanley’s sinister nature. Foster doesn’t quite establish himself with the same on-screen physicality that Anderson’s Blanche possesses. That’s a shame, as it’s an absolute requirement to the dynamic between the two, who are crucial to the play’s palpable tension. It’s not that he simply isn’t Brando; as stated, that would be unfair and a cheap shot. The issue is that he can’t compete with Anderson, and he has to be able to. He does well in showing his softer side to his wife, and the vulnerability that is only barely hidden beneath the surface, but when it comes to him playing the all-important partner in the many sparring matches between Blanche and Stanley. Possibly this is a little unfair, as it would take some doing to match Anderson’s scintillating and exhilarating performance. Still, Foster is the weak link of the three performances that get most stage-time and dialogue.
As a character, Stella is very much the poor relation, in as much as she isn’t at the forefront of the unfolding drama of events in this story. That said, it takes the delicately applied ability of someone such as Kirby to make this what helps to make things tick. Stella’s performance is key, as if it is too intense then things begin to fall apart quite quickly. Deliberately ensuring a character of secondary importance remains just that is no easy ask. Kirby manages to maintain a meekness throughout, that is what the character demands. It takes some skill and talent to maintain an applied, understated aspect to a character for almost three-hours. Fortunately, Kirby rises to the challenge and is always the glue between the three; what Kirby achieves is portraying the stresses that such a role plays in grinding down a person. She is well and truly caught between a rock and a hard place, and that’s where Kirby’s talents lie. She knows this and gives the audience a vivid and charged performance, proving it.
Corey Johnson gives a decent performance, as Mitch. Mitch is the only other character to get stage-time and dialogue, other than the triumvirate of Blanche, Stanley and Stella. What Johnson does is show that even when it was frowned upon, there were men who weren’t Stanley Kowalski; at least they didn’t appear to be on the surface. Johnson offsets his physicality (he’s the largest and most powerful of the men in the show) with a depiction of an at first gentle-giant. He declares himself as a damaged soul, and suggests that him and Blanche could be a fix, for one another. Yet, upon discovering that Blanche is less than perfect, Mitch quickly turns. What Johnson’s performance does is highlight that for almost all women at the time (and indeed still today, largely believed to be to a lesser extent, but perhaps not the case) in America (and the Western World generally), their status was decided by men, who got to ascribe certain behaviours to them, and fix labels that defined their lives. Johnson identifies this in Mitch, and again highlights that what people see on the outside isn’t always what goes on behind closed-doors. And now we get to that scene.
As a white male, and therefore someone with degrees of privilege and socially installed and biased “rank,” I find myself entirely unqualified to offer any meaningful insight to the multi-faceted and ever-prevalent issue of sexual-violence towards women; however, I acknowledge that not talking about it is also detrimental. The issue needs talking about, in detail and as often as possible – but not by those who haven’t experienced such horrors, who are lucky enough to never have to understand. I am blessed to be in that category, being fully aware that so many women are cursed not to be. With this is mind, from here on in I accept full responsibility in choosing to lean towards the latter category of mere commentator, trying to remain informed, but accepting my limits. I may fail and apologise in advance if that’s the case. I’d rather state this, and welcome being told what I ought to have said, and learn from and through opinions and experiences women talk about, than claim to have a fair perspective, or lo and behold one that supersedes them. The following scene analysis and discussion of it in the context of today’s society is unapologetically governed towards exposing why this horrific part of the story is very much relevant today. As stated, as much as possible, I have attempted to veer away from personal opinion, and remain focused on the function of the graphic scene in the play.
In the original play, what happens to Blanche in scene ten is not expressly stated. That may be more telling of the audience than it was on Williams. The assumption of what Stanley did to her was never in doubt. In 1947 this sort of behaviour went much less frowned upon, especially when the victim is a woman in the midst of a mental breakdown. All of her agency was removed, and perhaps that’s the point that Williams was trying to make: Stanley will be believed. Yet, strongly suggesting what does happen doesn’t always give the effect of making the fact it goes unnoticed get noticed, which is absolutely necessary today. That’s what was really needed in this version. Maybe, if the show was performed following the successful conviction of Harvey Weinstein, after the #MeToo movement began to take hold, this scene would have been done very differently. Probably, it should have been. The handling of the scene is often what’s problematic; simply calling it a problematic scene removes any responsibility for choices to be made by a modern Director.
There’s no real accolade for the Director here, as this isn’t a clever re-imagining or contemporary take, per say. Overall, this play belongs to Anderson. Kirby also shines, though it’s Anderson depicting gradual descent into madness and despair that wins, here. She truly shows how vulnerable people still slip through the net, by her handling of the character bringing the many themes of the show back up to the surface. They are eternally relevant, as Williams wrote a dramatic treatise on the behaviours of humans, and how our society judges, measures and delivers certain ideals that some can’t, not won’t, abide by. The presentations of Blanche, and Kirby’s treatment of a bullied-woman are the magic that show this, and that’s apt. The biggest take-home is that women were treated as second-class citizens then, and so much of the mistreatment they suffered went unreported. Today the issue is deemed to be much more reported and as a result, “dealt with better”, with supposedly fewer women in less danger. The reality is often very different. So much of what did happen still does. To be woman today (just speak to one and ask, then listen, not arguing) still means many aspects of your life are unequal, and your agency, status and societal treatment are still overly scrutinised, and as a result large parts of your perceived identity get decided for you.
Now, the National Theatre (although the Young Vic is a separate entity) is uploading one of play to YouTube each week, as people are madly missing live theatre. They are asking people who watch these productions, and are able to, to donate what they can afford. Theatres are currently crippled, financially, due to the lockdown imposed owing to the Covid 19 pandemic. This is as close as we can get, currently, to seeing a live-show. If we can, let’s give a few quid to say thanks and keep these incredible institutions afloat. Hopefully it won’t be too long before we can again enjoy the majesty of live-theatre.
You can find out more about National Theatre Home here!
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 29th May 2020
Film Review: Extraction
Netflix has started making more and more independent productions. They are using bigger names, too. One of their latest offerings stars Chris Hemsworth (best known as Thor, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Their latest offering is Extraction. It was released in April and at the time I watched it (17.05.2020) it was the fifth most watched movie in the U.K., on Netflix. Before we get to dissecting the film, a quick word on the genre, and expectations, I had beforehand.
When I saw this film advertised whilst browsing on Netflix, I thought it was likely to be a gung-ho action film with a heavy focus on the set-pieces (fights, chases, explosive sequences, etc), to the detriment of the story and characters. I was expecting a completely formulaic offering, and in some ways that’s all I wanted from it. For me, I thought, this will be easy watching; simple escapism for a couple of hours. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Not every film you watch has to be worthy of an Oscar. It’s called the Entertainment Industry for a reason.
A few minutes into the film and I was on course for exactly what I had expected. A boy, Ovi, played by the wonderful Rudhraksh Jaiswal, is kidnapped by a leading Bangladeshi drug-baron (his father is the rival of the man who has organised the kidnapping, and biggest drug-lord in India), the sinister Amir Asif, played by Priyanshu Painyuli. What I wasn’t expecting was the violence I saw during the kidnap scene. That was perhaps a little unnecessary; saying that, it was a good way of setting the stall out for what would come. It provided a shock. I was alert and realised that this will probably be quite different from the usual ex-special forces soldier of fortune type gets hired to rescue a hostage. It’s fair to say that the pace was set and I was invested. Not because I wanted to see brutality on screen, but because I was genuinely scared for the young boy who had just been. kidnapped. I cared for the character quite quickly
Switch scenes and enter Chris Hemsworth. His character, Tyler, is with others and they are near a small canyon, laying in the sun, in their native Australia. One of his friends looks down to the lagoon, but doesn’t jump. He expresses concern at how high it is, and based on that steps back. Chris Hemsworth’s character runs up and takes the plunge. There’s no real cockiness to the act. When he lands in the water, he deliberately remains submerged, choosing to sit at the bottom of the water, cross-legged and contemplative. At that point I felt this film may indeed have some substance to it.
The story is quite formulaic, in that a ransom is being demanded for Ovi, by Asif. Tyler is hired to go in and rescue the boy, being held in the deeply populate city of Dhaka, in Bangladesh. The rescue has been ordered by the man working for Ovi’s father, Saju Rav (Randeep Hooda). Ovi’s father threatened Saju, stating that if his son isn’t returned safely, then he would pay by having his own family murdered. It’s very visceral, highly charged stuff, with questions being asked about how far people will go to ensure their loved ones are safe. What’s also on show is how the powerful can make demands. Even from his prison cell, Ovi’s father makes commands and threats.
Once the rescue gets underway things were as I expected, somewhat. There are double crossings and betrayals. Tyler takes out the team watching over the kidnapped Ovi. All of them. Standard stuff. There are some graphic scenes, which may or may not be necessary, depending upon your stomach for these things, as well as your attitude. With the boy in tow, the two try to escape. That’s where things really get going. Saju desperately tries to retrieve Ovi, as he fears for his own family’s safety. Him and Tyler clash, and the fight scenes feel very real and look like they are occurring in real time. The visuals impress, and the choreography too.
A few scenes later Tyler and Ovi are temporarily safe, with Tyler having called upon a friend, whose life he once saved. Tyler’s friend points out how valuable the boy is and that they can give him over to Asif (who has by now shown how far his influence goes by ordering the military and police – that seem to work in tandem – to shut down the city and find the boy, at all costs). This is where the film’s sub-plot becomes cleverly interlinked with the main plot. You learn about the characters and what drives them. Tyler has a decision to make, one that will define who he is. Hemsworth and Jaiswal both give some inspired emotionally charged performances, and what results is more than sum of a simple kidnap and rescue problem.
What makes this film worth a watch is the take it chooses to have, on a simple idea. The power of it comes from the acting, and the developed characters. Much of what goes on is an analysis of the nature of violence, and the way that power is used. There will be those who feel that the depictions of Asian countries and Asian people are stereotyped and much too Western-centric. Perhaps that is true to some extent, but it’s still a world away from the typical Hollywood stuff. There is nuance. It’s refreshing to see something that feels believable and gives a glimpse into the levels of corruption that go on everywhere. Yes, the hero is white; yes, he is male. What he’s not is typical, though. Things do seem to be slowly changing, even in the narratives of action movies. This is every bit Jaiswal’s film as it is Hemsworth’s. That’s what is wonderful about this film. A young, Indian actor is on the same stage and has as much screen time as a Western, white, male mega-star. The two make an unlikely coupling, but one that you are invested in.
Upon reflection, I was wrong. I’m glad I was. This film offers something more than just loud noises and violence for the sake of it. Yes, there are extreme scenes; no, they are not wholly gratuitous. They are necessary to how the impact of violence. There’s enough underneath this story going on to warrant the bloodshed. If anything, it becomes a crucial part of the message of the film. Violence leaves horror in its wake. But there is always a chance for redemption that has to be sought out, and the steps made towards it have to be chosen to be taken. This is a film about who you really want to be, and what leads you to that. There are some wonderfully made examples of why traditional masculinity was never really traditional at all. The characters are real, and the males feel things. There is a still a long way to go, but this film does at least begin to offer hope. It doesn’t deny patriarchy. Far from it. It shows that it’s possible to tell action-packed stories with men at the centre of them, with emotional depth, without cheapening them into token gestures, or deliberately contrived. Hopefully, this is where things are headed: more representation of places other than America and their version of the Middle East; more emotionally realistic characters and more depth to male action heroes. I cried, which I didn’t expect to, but am not ashamed to say.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 23rd May 2020
When I saw this film advertised whilst browsing on Netflix, I thought it was likely to be a gung-ho action film with a heavy focus on the set-pieces (fights, chases, explosive sequences, etc), to the detriment of the story and characters. I was expecting a completely formulaic offering, and in some ways that’s all I wanted from it. For me, I thought, this will be easy watching; simple escapism for a couple of hours. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Not every film you watch has to be worthy of an Oscar. It’s called the Entertainment Industry for a reason.
A few minutes into the film and I was on course for exactly what I had expected. A boy, Ovi, played by the wonderful Rudhraksh Jaiswal, is kidnapped by a leading Bangladeshi drug-baron (his father is the rival of the man who has organised the kidnapping, and biggest drug-lord in India), the sinister Amir Asif, played by Priyanshu Painyuli. What I wasn’t expecting was the violence I saw during the kidnap scene. That was perhaps a little unnecessary; saying that, it was a good way of setting the stall out for what would come. It provided a shock. I was alert and realised that this will probably be quite different from the usual ex-special forces soldier of fortune type gets hired to rescue a hostage. It’s fair to say that the pace was set and I was invested. Not because I wanted to see brutality on screen, but because I was genuinely scared for the young boy who had just been. kidnapped. I cared for the character quite quickly
Switch scenes and enter Chris Hemsworth. His character, Tyler, is with others and they are near a small canyon, laying in the sun, in their native Australia. One of his friends looks down to the lagoon, but doesn’t jump. He expresses concern at how high it is, and based on that steps back. Chris Hemsworth’s character runs up and takes the plunge. There’s no real cockiness to the act. When he lands in the water, he deliberately remains submerged, choosing to sit at the bottom of the water, cross-legged and contemplative. At that point I felt this film may indeed have some substance to it.
The story is quite formulaic, in that a ransom is being demanded for Ovi, by Asif. Tyler is hired to go in and rescue the boy, being held in the deeply populate city of Dhaka, in Bangladesh. The rescue has been ordered by the man working for Ovi’s father, Saju Rav (Randeep Hooda). Ovi’s father threatened Saju, stating that if his son isn’t returned safely, then he would pay by having his own family murdered. It’s very visceral, highly charged stuff, with questions being asked about how far people will go to ensure their loved ones are safe. What’s also on show is how the powerful can make demands. Even from his prison cell, Ovi’s father makes commands and threats.
Once the rescue gets underway things were as I expected, somewhat. There are double crossings and betrayals. Tyler takes out the team watching over the kidnapped Ovi. All of them. Standard stuff. There are some graphic scenes, which may or may not be necessary, depending upon your stomach for these things, as well as your attitude. With the boy in tow, the two try to escape. That’s where things really get going. Saju desperately tries to retrieve Ovi, as he fears for his own family’s safety. Him and Tyler clash, and the fight scenes feel very real and look like they are occurring in real time. The visuals impress, and the choreography too.
A few scenes later Tyler and Ovi are temporarily safe, with Tyler having called upon a friend, whose life he once saved. Tyler’s friend points out how valuable the boy is and that they can give him over to Asif (who has by now shown how far his influence goes by ordering the military and police – that seem to work in tandem – to shut down the city and find the boy, at all costs). This is where the film’s sub-plot becomes cleverly interlinked with the main plot. You learn about the characters and what drives them. Tyler has a decision to make, one that will define who he is. Hemsworth and Jaiswal both give some inspired emotionally charged performances, and what results is more than sum of a simple kidnap and rescue problem.
What makes this film worth a watch is the take it chooses to have, on a simple idea. The power of it comes from the acting, and the developed characters. Much of what goes on is an analysis of the nature of violence, and the way that power is used. There will be those who feel that the depictions of Asian countries and Asian people are stereotyped and much too Western-centric. Perhaps that is true to some extent, but it’s still a world away from the typical Hollywood stuff. There is nuance. It’s refreshing to see something that feels believable and gives a glimpse into the levels of corruption that go on everywhere. Yes, the hero is white; yes, he is male. What he’s not is typical, though. Things do seem to be slowly changing, even in the narratives of action movies. This is every bit Jaiswal’s film as it is Hemsworth’s. That’s what is wonderful about this film. A young, Indian actor is on the same stage and has as much screen time as a Western, white, male mega-star. The two make an unlikely coupling, but one that you are invested in.
Upon reflection, I was wrong. I’m glad I was. This film offers something more than just loud noises and violence for the sake of it. Yes, there are extreme scenes; no, they are not wholly gratuitous. They are necessary to how the impact of violence. There’s enough underneath this story going on to warrant the bloodshed. If anything, it becomes a crucial part of the message of the film. Violence leaves horror in its wake. But there is always a chance for redemption that has to be sought out, and the steps made towards it have to be chosen to be taken. This is a film about who you really want to be, and what leads you to that. There are some wonderfully made examples of why traditional masculinity was never really traditional at all. The characters are real, and the males feel things. There is a still a long way to go, but this film does at least begin to offer hope. It doesn’t deny patriarchy. Far from it. It shows that it’s possible to tell action-packed stories with men at the centre of them, with emotional depth, without cheapening them into token gestures, or deliberately contrived. Hopefully, this is where things are headed: more representation of places other than America and their version of the Middle East; more emotionally realistic characters and more depth to male action heroes. I cried, which I didn’t expect to, but am not ashamed to say.
Written by: Benjamin Cassidy
Published: 23rd May 2020
TV Review: The Trip to Greece
This post contains spoilers for the 4th series of The Trip to Greece
The Trip to Greece is a sobering one. Once again we join fictionalised versions of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon on their supposed journalistic trip, this time to Greece. Impersonations, good but ridiculously priced food (such small portions!) return, but something has infiltrated the atmosphere: death. Ten years after the two drove and ate their way through the long roads and Michelin starred restaurants of the Lake District, this final trip covering Homer’s Odyssey seems like a natural end.
Impressions of Roger Moore and Ronnie Corbett may seem to some as tiring come this 4th season, but Coogan and Brydon manage to deflect such an expectation through their location; if art is pure mimicry, a crime that mis-represents nature, then these two mimics want wholeheartedly to be guilty. It’s a wonderful parrell that marks the show as equally learned but capable of sending up that seriousness with little tit-bits of popular culture.
But this final series does ‘serious’ well. More sobering moments include an encounter with Kareem, a real life refugee actor who asks Steve for a lift to a camp. In the car, Brydon tells Kareem of Coogan’s large collection of cars, and when they pull up, the mood drops; the scenery and nice food fades for a moment against this horrifying reality.
There are two scenes in The Trip to Greece that are so incredibly humbling that I defy anyone not to tear up; firstly Brydon has Coogan lie down, place his t-shirt on his head and reenact the death of Socrates. Having drunk hemlock, Socrates awaits his death. Brydon’s recital of Plato’s description of the philosopher as ‘the wisest and most just of all men’ seems like an abstract demonstration of their brotherly love for one another - that’s speculation of course, but it does seem to me a wonderful exchange between the two. The most heartbreaking is the death of Coogan’s father. As they approach the ferry for Ithaca, Coogan’s son phones him. He hangs up, returns to Brydon who complains that they might miss the ferry and asks what’s going on. He tells him his father’s died, notices all the butterflies around and heads back to the car. The show has always mocked Coogan’s inability to be a serious actor, but Winterbottom’s close ups show just how capable Steve is being one.
Television comedy has, over the past decade, become increasingly dark. Shows like Rick and Morty, Bojack Horseman and Ricky Gervais’ Afterlife have taken mortality to task by asking their audiences to laugh in the face of it - it’s that age old adage of if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry. As always The Trip sees the two egos of Rob and Steve battle it out in the arena of impersonations, and whose career has fared better than the others. This time round, the two seem exhausted with their battling. It is particularly warming to see this time around Coogan being reduced to fits of laughter, showing a genuine break in his otherwise flamboyant exaggerated character, which results in what appears to be a warming admiration for each other. And so The Trip is a reluctant embrace of what comes next.
Written by: Liv Beards
Published: 12th March 2020
The Trip to Greece is a sobering one. Once again we join fictionalised versions of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon on their supposed journalistic trip, this time to Greece. Impersonations, good but ridiculously priced food (such small portions!) return, but something has infiltrated the atmosphere: death. Ten years after the two drove and ate their way through the long roads and Michelin starred restaurants of the Lake District, this final trip covering Homer’s Odyssey seems like a natural end.
Impressions of Roger Moore and Ronnie Corbett may seem to some as tiring come this 4th season, but Coogan and Brydon manage to deflect such an expectation through their location; if art is pure mimicry, a crime that mis-represents nature, then these two mimics want wholeheartedly to be guilty. It’s a wonderful parrell that marks the show as equally learned but capable of sending up that seriousness with little tit-bits of popular culture.
But this final series does ‘serious’ well. More sobering moments include an encounter with Kareem, a real life refugee actor who asks Steve for a lift to a camp. In the car, Brydon tells Kareem of Coogan’s large collection of cars, and when they pull up, the mood drops; the scenery and nice food fades for a moment against this horrifying reality.
There are two scenes in The Trip to Greece that are so incredibly humbling that I defy anyone not to tear up; firstly Brydon has Coogan lie down, place his t-shirt on his head and reenact the death of Socrates. Having drunk hemlock, Socrates awaits his death. Brydon’s recital of Plato’s description of the philosopher as ‘the wisest and most just of all men’ seems like an abstract demonstration of their brotherly love for one another - that’s speculation of course, but it does seem to me a wonderful exchange between the two. The most heartbreaking is the death of Coogan’s father. As they approach the ferry for Ithaca, Coogan’s son phones him. He hangs up, returns to Brydon who complains that they might miss the ferry and asks what’s going on. He tells him his father’s died, notices all the butterflies around and heads back to the car. The show has always mocked Coogan’s inability to be a serious actor, but Winterbottom’s close ups show just how capable Steve is being one.
Television comedy has, over the past decade, become increasingly dark. Shows like Rick and Morty, Bojack Horseman and Ricky Gervais’ Afterlife have taken mortality to task by asking their audiences to laugh in the face of it - it’s that age old adage of if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry. As always The Trip sees the two egos of Rob and Steve battle it out in the arena of impersonations, and whose career has fared better than the others. This time round, the two seem exhausted with their battling. It is particularly warming to see this time around Coogan being reduced to fits of laughter, showing a genuine break in his otherwise flamboyant exaggerated character, which results in what appears to be a warming admiration for each other. And so The Trip is a reluctant embrace of what comes next.
Written by: Liv Beards
Published: 12th March 2020
Film Review: Jojo Rabbit
Before seeing Jojo Rabbit, I knew the bare minimum about the plot – that it’s about a little boy, Jojo, a fanatic member of the Hitler Youth, and his experiences in Nazi Germany towards the end of the war. This includes his discovery of Elsa, a Jewish girl he finds in a cupboard in his sister’s old room, hidden there by his mother. Oh, and not forgetting the presence of his imaginary sidekick, Adolf Hitler. I could say more, but I found my own lack of spoiler-y details made the film all the more riveting, so I’m going to try to be as spoiler-free as possible.
Jojo Rabbit was directed by Taika Waititi of Thor: Ragnarok fame, and is based on the bestselling novel Caging Skies by fellow New Zealander Christine Leunens. This film very openly satirises Nazi Germany, which could initially feel like a dangerous route to take and make for an uneasy watch. However, Waititi pulled off the desired effect beautifully through a very carefully and well-orchestrated balance of surreal, offhand humour and a solemn, emotional gravity. One minute, you’re laughing at a Monty Python-esque barrage of ‘Heil Hitler’s’ as people greet each other (apparently the most ‘Heil Hitler’s’ in one scene), and the next you’re watching horrified and overwhelmed as small Jojo runs through the massive devastation of his town as it is bombed by the Allied forces, liberating them from Nazi rule. This balance between satire and acknowledging the serious nature of the setting can also be seen in the singular case of Waititi’s characterisation of Hitler, because despite being very funny and very obviously a fanboy’s dream, he was a Hitler that was scarily familiar nonetheless. This was illustrated in a poignant scene where imaginary Hitler’s speech morphs from its campy, colloquial tone into a manner of speaking, extremely reminiscent of the real Hitler’s speech style we know from archival footage of his rallies. We weren’t allowed to forget who this man really was. Jojo Rabbit undoubtedly laughs at the ridiculous nature of the Nazi Party, but does not take anything away from the atrocities we know they caused.
The portrayals of the characters in this film were spot on, in general, but I was particularly impressed by the kids/teens playing Jojo, Jojo’s reluctant friend Elsa, and Jojo’s best friend Yorki (Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin McKenzie and Archie Yates, respectively). It’d be really easy to say that their range was so good it was adult, but that would be a disservice to them, as it was their believably childlike nature that was so heart-warming and impressive. It was more that their talent was adult, that there was a maturity to their performances that made their characterisations seem so natural rather than like a movie’s impression of what a child is like. You could attribute this to good writing (which was amazing, to be fair), but these young actors really brought these characters to life and created believable people for us to enjoy on screen.
Scarlett Johansson’s performance as Jojo’s mother, Rosie, was also superb. This portrayal of a mother is a step in the right direction regarding showing believable women on screen. Rather than this character being known only as ‘Mother’ and her single character trait being ‘motherly’, Rosie bursts onto the screen as a wacky, energetic woman, with a name and a personality of her own. This movie mother is a three-dimensional person, a woman who simultaneously tries to appear upbeat for her ten-year-old son, but also one so obviously suffering inner turmoil as she tries to help the less fortunate (such as Elsa) survive Nazi Germany. These layers within her character come to the fore during an argument she has with Jojo, when in reaction to his demand for his father, she abruptly marches to the fireplace, smears soot onto her face as a beard, slings on an army jacket, and impersonates his father to chastise him. It’s so unexpected, and just part of an amazing, varied performance by Johansson.
This film can be very surreal, but it’s very realistic when it considers the war, as it looks at the situation of Nazi Germany and imagines the real people at its heart. A great example of this is Captain Klenzendorf, played by Sam Rockwell. Klenzendorf is, undoubtedly, a willing Nazi with Nazi views, but the film’s view of him is nuanced. It does not make excuses for his choices and actions, but does show him to also be capable of performing acts of kindness. A great example of this is when he makes a decision with the intention of protecting Elsa from immediate danger of the Gestapo - he doesn’t always follow the rules of the regime as rigidly and fanatically as the Hitler Youth children do, like Jojo himself. This in itself is making fun of Nazism, as the fact children find it so easy to follow Nazism could be the film pointing out how childish and ridiculous Nazism is as an ideology. The children find it easy to understand because it lacks complexity, which is precisely why some of the adults of the film cannot follow it to the same extent - they know that the world is greyer than that. As the Second World War is often thought of in a very black and white manner, this nuance makes for a very interesting watch, and certainly leaves you very torn regarding some of these characters, especially Klenzendorf. It definitely leaves a lot of room for discussion, which is something I think Waititi intended when he made this film.
Along with some great music choices (‘Komm gib mir deine Hand’/‘I wanna hold your hand’ by the Beatles at the beginning and Bowie’s ‘Helden’/‘Heroes’), Jojo Rabbit is a great watch. Layered, heart-wrenching and hilarious, it is overall a very hopeful film that will keep audiences talking long after the credits have stopped rolling.
Written by: Sofia Wood
Published: 2nd February 2020
Jojo Rabbit was directed by Taika Waititi of Thor: Ragnarok fame, and is based on the bestselling novel Caging Skies by fellow New Zealander Christine Leunens. This film very openly satirises Nazi Germany, which could initially feel like a dangerous route to take and make for an uneasy watch. However, Waititi pulled off the desired effect beautifully through a very carefully and well-orchestrated balance of surreal, offhand humour and a solemn, emotional gravity. One minute, you’re laughing at a Monty Python-esque barrage of ‘Heil Hitler’s’ as people greet each other (apparently the most ‘Heil Hitler’s’ in one scene), and the next you’re watching horrified and overwhelmed as small Jojo runs through the massive devastation of his town as it is bombed by the Allied forces, liberating them from Nazi rule. This balance between satire and acknowledging the serious nature of the setting can also be seen in the singular case of Waititi’s characterisation of Hitler, because despite being very funny and very obviously a fanboy’s dream, he was a Hitler that was scarily familiar nonetheless. This was illustrated in a poignant scene where imaginary Hitler’s speech morphs from its campy, colloquial tone into a manner of speaking, extremely reminiscent of the real Hitler’s speech style we know from archival footage of his rallies. We weren’t allowed to forget who this man really was. Jojo Rabbit undoubtedly laughs at the ridiculous nature of the Nazi Party, but does not take anything away from the atrocities we know they caused.
The portrayals of the characters in this film were spot on, in general, but I was particularly impressed by the kids/teens playing Jojo, Jojo’s reluctant friend Elsa, and Jojo’s best friend Yorki (Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin McKenzie and Archie Yates, respectively). It’d be really easy to say that their range was so good it was adult, but that would be a disservice to them, as it was their believably childlike nature that was so heart-warming and impressive. It was more that their talent was adult, that there was a maturity to their performances that made their characterisations seem so natural rather than like a movie’s impression of what a child is like. You could attribute this to good writing (which was amazing, to be fair), but these young actors really brought these characters to life and created believable people for us to enjoy on screen.
Scarlett Johansson’s performance as Jojo’s mother, Rosie, was also superb. This portrayal of a mother is a step in the right direction regarding showing believable women on screen. Rather than this character being known only as ‘Mother’ and her single character trait being ‘motherly’, Rosie bursts onto the screen as a wacky, energetic woman, with a name and a personality of her own. This movie mother is a three-dimensional person, a woman who simultaneously tries to appear upbeat for her ten-year-old son, but also one so obviously suffering inner turmoil as she tries to help the less fortunate (such as Elsa) survive Nazi Germany. These layers within her character come to the fore during an argument she has with Jojo, when in reaction to his demand for his father, she abruptly marches to the fireplace, smears soot onto her face as a beard, slings on an army jacket, and impersonates his father to chastise him. It’s so unexpected, and just part of an amazing, varied performance by Johansson.
This film can be very surreal, but it’s very realistic when it considers the war, as it looks at the situation of Nazi Germany and imagines the real people at its heart. A great example of this is Captain Klenzendorf, played by Sam Rockwell. Klenzendorf is, undoubtedly, a willing Nazi with Nazi views, but the film’s view of him is nuanced. It does not make excuses for his choices and actions, but does show him to also be capable of performing acts of kindness. A great example of this is when he makes a decision with the intention of protecting Elsa from immediate danger of the Gestapo - he doesn’t always follow the rules of the regime as rigidly and fanatically as the Hitler Youth children do, like Jojo himself. This in itself is making fun of Nazism, as the fact children find it so easy to follow Nazism could be the film pointing out how childish and ridiculous Nazism is as an ideology. The children find it easy to understand because it lacks complexity, which is precisely why some of the adults of the film cannot follow it to the same extent - they know that the world is greyer than that. As the Second World War is often thought of in a very black and white manner, this nuance makes for a very interesting watch, and certainly leaves you very torn regarding some of these characters, especially Klenzendorf. It definitely leaves a lot of room for discussion, which is something I think Waititi intended when he made this film.
Along with some great music choices (‘Komm gib mir deine Hand’/‘I wanna hold your hand’ by the Beatles at the beginning and Bowie’s ‘Helden’/‘Heroes’), Jojo Rabbit is a great watch. Layered, heart-wrenching and hilarious, it is overall a very hopeful film that will keep audiences talking long after the credits have stopped rolling.
Written by: Sofia Wood
Published: 2nd February 2020
TV Review: Dracula (BBC) written by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Steven Moffat has always had a certain way of adapting novels. Take Jekyll (2007), Moffat’s adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s psycho-scientific novella Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886). The Victorian novel was propelled into the 21st century, at once desiring a distance between its original and yet wanting to make meta-references to the original. This attitude to adapting appeared a little disingenuous to the fans, as if to say ‘You’ve read the original, but I understand the original’. This plagued my viewing of his adaptation of Sherlock (2010). Television should demand viewers imagination, not suggest they lack one. But Dracula was something different. Dracula inhabits every mood of its gothic original and praises the modern obsession with vampires in popular culture.
Moffat and Gatiss stage the book through intimate recallings of memories. Episode 1 ‘The Rules of the Beast’ shows an emaciated and truly horrifying shell of one Jonathan Harker. He sits in a quasi confession with Sister Agatha Van Helsing and tells her of his stay in Transylvania. Agatha works as the audience here, for whenever Jonathan recalls something confusing, she brings us out of the memory and back to the present to question him. The format works as a sort of cross-examination, meaning those not familiar with the story can better understand it and those familiar can have a cheeky wink and a nod at the little details being playfully pulled apart by a modern twist. And playfully pulled apart it is. When Agatha remarks in Episode 2, ‘Blood Vessel’, that Dracula didn’t stay in his box of soil on the voyage to England and instead socialised with those on board, Dracula wryly suggests that to do anything else would be silly - a pointed criticism towards the novel in which Dracula lies asleep in his box, only waking at night to quietly menace the passengers. Like any Moffat/Gattis creation, Dracula isn’t going to do anything without anyone watching.
Moffat’s work has always been about the spectacle of aesthetics. Whether he had a hand in the cinematography on Jekyll (along with Adam Suschitzky and Peter Greenhalgh) Moffat’s scripts no doubt reflect this ambition. The attention to detail - changing James Nesbitt’s hairline when he changed into Hyde, that he is perceived to be quite a bit taller than his alter ego - was a step British television was willing to take. It was no longer a case of thrilling aesthetics versus a dynamic script. It was a blend of the two and neither suffered (the CGI hasn’t aged all that well, but I digress). And this sentiment lives on in Dracula. The atmosphere of the series draws on its Hammer Horror adaptations with a particular fondness. When Claes Bang’s Dracula rears his head up at the camera, one could be forgiven for thinking it was Christoper Lee; The quiffed black hair, the smoky grey eyes and dusty red lips. But Bang’s performance as the charming Count is true to form for a Moffat-ian villain: like Nesbitt’s Jekyll and Andrew Scott’s Moriarty, a voice with a particular timbre and a face that flits between a snarl and smirk combine to make a man untouchable, but believe me, you’ll want to get near them.
Bringing characters out of their original is always challenging, and Episode 3 seemed to suffer from this. Suddenly after only having the main cast Dr Seward, Lucy Westernra and Renfield are launched at us with little to no characterisation. Lucy fairs better than the rest; the nympho in the book is given wonderful depth to her supposed superficiality, resulting in her being burnt alive and subsequent fate as a scarred vampire for all eternity being truly devastating. Lydia West deserves all praise for her performance of Lucy. Moffat’s strength is in the main character. He seems to focus on the inner workings, so much so that you don’t really care for the rest of the cast. But Gatiss is wonderful at making a match for the main man; he doesn’t so much create a double for them, but a shadow. John Watson always appeared to play second fiddle to the detective in Conan Doyle’s stories, but in Sherlock he plays an integral part in showing a human and tender side to the sometimes apathetic and socially ignorant genius. The tension between Dracula and Van Helsing in this new take was sometimes sexual other times platonic and infused the series with a tenderness towards loneliness and death. In the novel, Dracula was hunter and hunted. By giving Van Helsing status as a shadow, their shared characterisation in this series, meant the two became dependant on one another. The tension between Dracula and Van Helsing in this new take was sometimes sexual other times platonic and infused the series with a tenderness towards loneliness and death.
Dracula is a literal retelling that demands attention. WIth the advent of the rewind button, one can miss something and merely come back to it. But sitting there on New Year’s Day with a glass of left-over eggnog and crumbs on your lap, I defy anyone who didn’t throw their remote to the other side of the room and watch with no intention of looking away.
Written by: Olivia Beards
Published: 5th January 2020
Moffat and Gatiss stage the book through intimate recallings of memories. Episode 1 ‘The Rules of the Beast’ shows an emaciated and truly horrifying shell of one Jonathan Harker. He sits in a quasi confession with Sister Agatha Van Helsing and tells her of his stay in Transylvania. Agatha works as the audience here, for whenever Jonathan recalls something confusing, she brings us out of the memory and back to the present to question him. The format works as a sort of cross-examination, meaning those not familiar with the story can better understand it and those familiar can have a cheeky wink and a nod at the little details being playfully pulled apart by a modern twist. And playfully pulled apart it is. When Agatha remarks in Episode 2, ‘Blood Vessel’, that Dracula didn’t stay in his box of soil on the voyage to England and instead socialised with those on board, Dracula wryly suggests that to do anything else would be silly - a pointed criticism towards the novel in which Dracula lies asleep in his box, only waking at night to quietly menace the passengers. Like any Moffat/Gattis creation, Dracula isn’t going to do anything without anyone watching.
Moffat’s work has always been about the spectacle of aesthetics. Whether he had a hand in the cinematography on Jekyll (along with Adam Suschitzky and Peter Greenhalgh) Moffat’s scripts no doubt reflect this ambition. The attention to detail - changing James Nesbitt’s hairline when he changed into Hyde, that he is perceived to be quite a bit taller than his alter ego - was a step British television was willing to take. It was no longer a case of thrilling aesthetics versus a dynamic script. It was a blend of the two and neither suffered (the CGI hasn’t aged all that well, but I digress). And this sentiment lives on in Dracula. The atmosphere of the series draws on its Hammer Horror adaptations with a particular fondness. When Claes Bang’s Dracula rears his head up at the camera, one could be forgiven for thinking it was Christoper Lee; The quiffed black hair, the smoky grey eyes and dusty red lips. But Bang’s performance as the charming Count is true to form for a Moffat-ian villain: like Nesbitt’s Jekyll and Andrew Scott’s Moriarty, a voice with a particular timbre and a face that flits between a snarl and smirk combine to make a man untouchable, but believe me, you’ll want to get near them.
Bringing characters out of their original is always challenging, and Episode 3 seemed to suffer from this. Suddenly after only having the main cast Dr Seward, Lucy Westernra and Renfield are launched at us with little to no characterisation. Lucy fairs better than the rest; the nympho in the book is given wonderful depth to her supposed superficiality, resulting in her being burnt alive and subsequent fate as a scarred vampire for all eternity being truly devastating. Lydia West deserves all praise for her performance of Lucy. Moffat’s strength is in the main character. He seems to focus on the inner workings, so much so that you don’t really care for the rest of the cast. But Gatiss is wonderful at making a match for the main man; he doesn’t so much create a double for them, but a shadow. John Watson always appeared to play second fiddle to the detective in Conan Doyle’s stories, but in Sherlock he plays an integral part in showing a human and tender side to the sometimes apathetic and socially ignorant genius. The tension between Dracula and Van Helsing in this new take was sometimes sexual other times platonic and infused the series with a tenderness towards loneliness and death. In the novel, Dracula was hunter and hunted. By giving Van Helsing status as a shadow, their shared characterisation in this series, meant the two became dependant on one another. The tension between Dracula and Van Helsing in this new take was sometimes sexual other times platonic and infused the series with a tenderness towards loneliness and death.
Dracula is a literal retelling that demands attention. WIth the advent of the rewind button, one can miss something and merely come back to it. But sitting there on New Year’s Day with a glass of left-over eggnog and crumbs on your lap, I defy anyone who didn’t throw their remote to the other side of the room and watch with no intention of looking away.
Written by: Olivia Beards
Published: 5th January 2020
Fifty Shades Darker's Extended Trailer Looks Promising!
I appear to be one of the select few who didn’t bother to read, watch, or subsequently fan-girl over the Fifty Shades of Grey franchise when it first appeared. The film, from what I’d seen in trailers, held little to no promise of being entertaining and so I simply didn’t bother with it. However, we’re now in the cusp of the second instalment in the film franchise being released – Fifty Shades Darker, due on Valentine’s Day – and to my utter surprise and slight dismay, the trailers have got me quite interested.
It appears to our leading lady, Anastacia, ditched her somewhat abusive boyfriend Christian at the end of the last film and in this second feature, they look set to give things another go. However, somewhere in between corruption and helicopter crashes – plus a potentially crazy old flame who is causing trouble for our recently re-coupled protagonists – Fifty Shades Darker is looking less likely a socially acceptable porn film and more like a raunchy thriller.
A potential game-changer for those of us who scoffed at the franchise, you can check out the action-packed extended look online now and see for yourselves how much promise the film might just hold.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 5 January 2017
It appears to our leading lady, Anastacia, ditched her somewhat abusive boyfriend Christian at the end of the last film and in this second feature, they look set to give things another go. However, somewhere in between corruption and helicopter crashes – plus a potentially crazy old flame who is causing trouble for our recently re-coupled protagonists – Fifty Shades Darker is looking less likely a socially acceptable porn film and more like a raunchy thriller.
A potential game-changer for those of us who scoffed at the franchise, you can check out the action-packed extended look online now and see for yourselves how much promise the film might just hold.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 5 January 2017
New Trailer Revealed Online For The Last Word
A trailer has dropped online this week for the upcoming film starring Amanda Seyfried, titled The Last Word. The films follows the story of Harriet, played by Shirley Maclaine, who enlists Seyfried/Anne Sherman to write her obituary - before Harriet has even died.
Through a series of phone conversations and face to face confrontations it soon becomes clear that Harriet hasn't exactly led a quiet life, nor has she made many friends in her time. However, from the trailer alone it's already clear that it's never too late to change your life, no matter what people may think of you... A feel good two minutes, this is a stellar introduction to what seems to be a crackin' film, and you can check the trailer out now by clicking here. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 14 December 2016 |
Tense Trailer Released for New Thriller, Unforgettable
If you're hungry for another crazed housewife on your big screen then fear not, because it looks like Katherine Heigl is about to step into the role beautifully.
In a newly revealed trailer for the upcoming feature, Unforgettable (or To Have and to Hold, depending on where in the world you are), we see Heigl take up the role of Tessa, a woman who becomes obsessed with ruining the life of her ex-husband's new wife. And, if this trailer is anything to go by, it looks as though there'll be no mercy here at all. In the two minute clip we have deception, obsession, and hand-to-hand combat that looks truly vicious, making for a promising introduction to the film. You can check out the clip online for yourselves now by clicking here. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 14 December 2016 |
New Trailer Revealed for Fifty Shades Darker
For those of us (such as myself) who skipped out on the Fifty Shades of Grey hype when the first film hit the big screens, the arrival of a second trailer isn't much to shout about. For the fandom that follows thie film series, though, the latest trailer for Fifty Shades Darker is a reason worth celebrating - and, having had at the peak at the trailer, I'm begrudgingly admitting that it doesn't look that bad.
In this two minute and thirty second look at the second film we're reintroduced to our male and female leads from the first flick, picking up their dysfunctional relationship where they left off, it seems. The trailer shows drama, action, tension - and sex, of course - making for a solid intro to the film, and it seems that the powers that be are even trying to desperately cram some plot in around all that sex as well. To take a peak at the trailer yourselves, you can find it online now by clicking here. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 8 December 2016 |
Debut Trailer Released
|
Movie Review: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
The lights dim and I promptly lose my composure with excitement as the familiar score accompanies the title credits for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Advertised as a welcome return to Rowling's Wizarding World, the film is exactly that, serving up two hours and thirteen minutes of special effects, unexpected plots, and endearing characters that will leave you desperate for the sequel - which, we have been told already, will definitely appear at some point in the future.
The Fantastic Beasts tale catapults audiences back to 1926, to the time when Newt Scamander, here played by Eddie Redmayne, had just completed his journey around the globe to study and subsequently document these so-called fantastic beasts of the wizarding world. However, on the final leg of his journey that sees the young wizard visit New York City, he bumps into a No-Maj (which, it transpires, is American-talk for Muggle) called Kowalski (played by Dan Fogler) who quickly scuppers Scamander's plans.
To cut the plot short - and to avoid dropping too many spoilers - a number of Scamander's beasts are accidentally unleashed on an unsuspecting New York, leaving Newt and his new associate Tina (Katherine Waterson) to find them. This also gives Kowalski a chance to fall head over heels for Tina's sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol), but that's another plot entirely.
As is often the case with Rowling's creations, there are various other plot elements to look out for. However, I went into this expecting to see a wizard running round, trying to catch his fantastic beasts, and I was absolutely blown away by this film - so not knowing further details of the plot will certainly not hinder your viewing. This entire feature was wonderful and thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish, packed with a superb cast of star-studded actors - Redmayne could not have been better cast as far as I'm concerned - and special effects that will leave your jaw sitting wide. An absolutely stellar return to the world of Rowling, Fantastic Beasts is a beautiful film with a gripping plot, endearing characters, and legs for many films to follow. If you're looking for a worthy watch at the cinema this week, this is definitely a film worth seeing.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 28 November 2016
The Fantastic Beasts tale catapults audiences back to 1926, to the time when Newt Scamander, here played by Eddie Redmayne, had just completed his journey around the globe to study and subsequently document these so-called fantastic beasts of the wizarding world. However, on the final leg of his journey that sees the young wizard visit New York City, he bumps into a No-Maj (which, it transpires, is American-talk for Muggle) called Kowalski (played by Dan Fogler) who quickly scuppers Scamander's plans.
To cut the plot short - and to avoid dropping too many spoilers - a number of Scamander's beasts are accidentally unleashed on an unsuspecting New York, leaving Newt and his new associate Tina (Katherine Waterson) to find them. This also gives Kowalski a chance to fall head over heels for Tina's sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol), but that's another plot entirely.
As is often the case with Rowling's creations, there are various other plot elements to look out for. However, I went into this expecting to see a wizard running round, trying to catch his fantastic beasts, and I was absolutely blown away by this film - so not knowing further details of the plot will certainly not hinder your viewing. This entire feature was wonderful and thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish, packed with a superb cast of star-studded actors - Redmayne could not have been better cast as far as I'm concerned - and special effects that will leave your jaw sitting wide. An absolutely stellar return to the world of Rowling, Fantastic Beasts is a beautiful film with a gripping plot, endearing characters, and legs for many films to follow. If you're looking for a worthy watch at the cinema this week, this is definitely a film worth seeing.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 28 November 2016
Trailer News: Disney releases Trailer for Cars 3!
As far as trailers for animations go, Disney Pixar have just dropped an absolute clanger to announce the upcoming Cars 3. Following on from the first two films that were smash hits around the globe, if this trailer is anything to go by then the third instalment looks set to blow the earlier films out of the water.
We're given very little in this trailer, beyond a race track, a car crash, and a strapline of: 'From this moment everything will change.' Which is quite the intimidating promise for an animation movie to offer up!
Plot is thin although you can guess at a tragedy from the snippets of a crash that we can see and, for a peak at this explosive trailer yourselves, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 22 November 2016
We're given very little in this trailer, beyond a race track, a car crash, and a strapline of: 'From this moment everything will change.' Which is quite the intimidating promise for an animation movie to offer up!
Plot is thin although you can guess at a tragedy from the snippets of a crash that we can see and, for a peak at this explosive trailer yourselves, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 22 November 2016
Movie Review: Arrival
Ahead of actually seeing Arrival, I had heard nothing but good things. The film is, allegedly, one of the finest pieces of science fiction to drop on the big screen in some years, and from the trailers alone I had completely bought into that assessment before my backside had even touched the cinema seat. Eager and excited, I went along with high expectations to see the film last weekend - and those high expectations might be the sole reason why the film actually fell a little short for me.
Controversial, I know, but try as I might I can't quite escape the feeling that the film hangs firmly on a convoluted plotline that only really becomes clear in the final five minutes or so - and after two hours of concentrating on what was happening in front of me, I was in no way mentally prepared to give that much concentration to the final five minutes of the film. On a complementary note, there is a lot about the film that I enjoyed. Amy Adams as Dr. Louise Banks - the linguist employed to try and translate from the alien language into English - is simply glorious here; she's passionate, appropriately awkward, and Adams delivers the role with great conviction. Her on-screen relationship with fellow researcher Ian Donnelly, played by Jeremy Renner, makes for wonderful viewing, and their partner in crime act was certainly an endearing element of this feature. The third man character for me here was Colonel Weber, played by Forest Whitaker, and he is everything you'd expect from this style of character; hard-faced, tough to the point of arrogant, and absolutely essential to the structure of this film. There were, of course, one or two other famous faces dotted throughout, but these three are the stars of this without a doubt. The interactions with the aliens themselves were surprisingly beautiful, and the linguistic-led approach to an alien invasion, of sorts, was a wonderful concept that was well-executed, and it did make for thought-provoking viewing on occasion. For me, though, the poignant ending could have hit a little harder had the film been played differently, and I can't shake the disappointment from that. Overall Arrival is a decent watch, but it may be worth grabbing the DVD rather than a cinema ticket - it feels like a second watch will answer the questions that the first watch does a brilliant job of dangling in front of you... Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 17 November 2016 |
Movie Review: The Lobster
The Lobster is a dystopian meets romance meets science fiction film that dropped in UK cinemas this time last year. Given the star-studded nature of the film, not a massive amount was actually said about it when it came to mainstream movie reviews. Now, having watched the feature for myself, I can half-understand why that is.
The basic premise of the film is this: There is a hotel where single people check themselves in for a 45-day stay. In those 45 days there are expected to find a suitable mate with whom they can couple off; if, however, they do not manage to do that, the single person in question is then turned into an animal of their choice. In and around this unique take on finding love, there is also the added corruption of the loners who live in the woods, who are as hellbent to stay single forever as everyone else seems to be to couple off; and there are also the daily hunts where people from the hotel are expected to go out and capture these roaming single people, so the free-singles can be turned into animals and the hotel-singles will be given the opportunity to lengthen their time at the hotel. Are you keeping up? Turning to these famous faces then, the central character here, David, is played wonderfully by Colin Farrell; throughout Farrell is quirky, dithering, and surprisingly endearing, and his interactions with his cast of equally off-beat characters make for interesting viewing to say the least. We also see the likes of Rachel Weisz here, who narrates much of the film ahead of actually appearing in it for the final third stretch of the plot, alongside Ben Whishaw and John C. Reilly. The casting here is absolutely stellar, it has to be said, because every single character in this has been completely drawn into this new world and every actor involved delivers on that pretence fantastically. It is an odd watch, yes, and I was left with a, 'Oh, that's it?' feeling when the screen blacked out and the credits started to roll - but there's something quite impressive about The Lobster, and indeed the message the seats glaringly behind it, and for me that definitely makes it worth a watch. The film is available on Netflix UK now. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 17 November 2016 |
Trailer News: pet Drops a Terrifying First-look!
Pet is the horror meets thriller due to drop in a few months and, if this opening trailer is anything to go by, then the film is set to entertain and disturb in equal measure. Starting the likes of Dominic Monaghan and Ksenia Solo, the film tells the story of a man who, after running into an old flame, finds himself utterly obsessed with her.
But we're not talking the bunny boiler kind of obsession. No, we're talking the stalk her, drug her, and keep her in a cage kind of obsession. That's right! From the trailer alone it is already clear that all is not exactly how it seems from the beginning of this film and the early reviews of this release are promising twists like you've never seen before, so I for one am hugely excited to see what Pet plans to bring to the horror genre when the official release arrives.
For a taste of the twisted trailer, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 10 November 2016
But we're not talking the bunny boiler kind of obsession. No, we're talking the stalk her, drug her, and keep her in a cage kind of obsession. That's right! From the trailer alone it is already clear that all is not exactly how it seems from the beginning of this film and the early reviews of this release are promising twists like you've never seen before, so I for one am hugely excited to see what Pet plans to bring to the horror genre when the official release arrives.
For a taste of the twisted trailer, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 10 November 2016
Movie Review: Doctor Strange
I am an embarrassingly huge fan of Benedict Cumberbatch, so Doctor Strange was a film that caught my interest from the very first trailer. There were one or two good looking action shots, a snippet or two of the plot, and, as far as I could see, not a whole lot more to go on from the various trailer releases, though. Nevertheless when the film dropped in UK cinemas a couple of weeks back I went along to inspect the latest in the Marvel line and - to my utter relief - I wasn't at all disappointed.
Doctor Strange is a wonderful blend of regular reality and Marvel fiction like you've never seen it, and the effects liberally scattered throughout this whole film made for excellent viewing from start to finish. Cumberbatch makes for an antagonistic mortal and a thoroughly entertaining superhero and he was, in my opinion, perfectly cast here in the role of Strange. His surrounding cast, though, deserve a similar commendation! The Ancient One, played here by Tilda Swinton, made for thoroughly entertaining viewing throughout as she stood as an early rival to Strange's over-inflated ego; Swinton took to the role with ease and delivered with conviction making for a wonderful authority figure with a perfect amount of corruption thrown in. Chiwetel Ejiofor was a deliciously righteous Mordo while Mads Mikkelsen, as Kaecilius, made for a convincing and downright horrible bad-guy. Benefict Wong, as Wong, also has to have a mention here for being one of the most unexpectedly funny characters packed into this film - a stellar poker face indeed.
The plot was fairly solid although there was a little rushed feeling towards the close. I distinctly recall looking at my watch and thinking, 'How on earth will they do this in twenty minutes?' And, to the film's credit, everything was neatly pulled together and, as expected, splayed out again in order to lay the groundwork for the next film, but for me the timeline could have been slightly amended to allow for a better flow to the plot.
Overall, though, the film was truly beautiful - as the world collapses in on itself on more than one occasion, the main focus consistently rests on how beautiful everything looks while this collapse is happening. Polished, entertaining, and thoroughly amusing, Doctor Strange is a quality addition to the Marvel family and definitely worth a watch.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 7 November 2016
Doctor Strange is a wonderful blend of regular reality and Marvel fiction like you've never seen it, and the effects liberally scattered throughout this whole film made for excellent viewing from start to finish. Cumberbatch makes for an antagonistic mortal and a thoroughly entertaining superhero and he was, in my opinion, perfectly cast here in the role of Strange. His surrounding cast, though, deserve a similar commendation! The Ancient One, played here by Tilda Swinton, made for thoroughly entertaining viewing throughout as she stood as an early rival to Strange's over-inflated ego; Swinton took to the role with ease and delivered with conviction making for a wonderful authority figure with a perfect amount of corruption thrown in. Chiwetel Ejiofor was a deliciously righteous Mordo while Mads Mikkelsen, as Kaecilius, made for a convincing and downright horrible bad-guy. Benefict Wong, as Wong, also has to have a mention here for being one of the most unexpectedly funny characters packed into this film - a stellar poker face indeed.
The plot was fairly solid although there was a little rushed feeling towards the close. I distinctly recall looking at my watch and thinking, 'How on earth will they do this in twenty minutes?' And, to the film's credit, everything was neatly pulled together and, as expected, splayed out again in order to lay the groundwork for the next film, but for me the timeline could have been slightly amended to allow for a better flow to the plot.
Overall, though, the film was truly beautiful - as the world collapses in on itself on more than one occasion, the main focus consistently rests on how beautiful everything looks while this collapse is happening. Polished, entertaining, and thoroughly amusing, Doctor Strange is a quality addition to the Marvel family and definitely worth a watch.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 7 November 2016
Frank & Lola Reveal Steamy First-look Trailer!
The seemingly steamy Frank & Lola has this week dropped a brand spanking new trailer online that is as fascinating as it is ambiguous. Revealing little to nothing about the plot of the film, yet somehow serving up an impressive slice of action, the two-minute long trailer introduces us to the dysfunctional leads of the feature, alongside their surrounding cast that appears equally off-beat.
Marketing itself as a noir love story, the trailer is packed with bluesy music and atmospheric shots of the leading couple, including violence and sexual snapshots packed in here like you wouldn't believe.
Yes, the plot is thin, but this introduction is unbelievably appealing and it has set up something very intriguing for future trailers to follow. For a quick peak at the trailer, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 October 2016
Marketing itself as a noir love story, the trailer is packed with bluesy music and atmospheric shots of the leading couple, including violence and sexual snapshots packed in here like you wouldn't believe.
Yes, the plot is thin, but this introduction is unbelievably appealing and it has set up something very intriguing for future trailers to follow. For a quick peak at the trailer, you can find it online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 October 2016
Trash Fire Drops Creepy
|
New Trailer Revealed for Army of One
It's been a while since we had a potentially offensive but undeniably amusing film hit the big screens, but fear not, because Army of One is about to change all of that.
With Nicholas Cage playing the role of disillusioned Gary who receives a message from God - here played by Russell Brand, because he needed that sort of boost - we are, in this latest trailer, introduced to Gary's journey from America to Pakistan on his mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. I'm not joking, no. It looks good for a few laughs, admittedly, but there are some fine lines being stamped on in this trailer as well. You can check it out by clicking here. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 15 October 2016 |
Movie Review: The Girl on the Train
The Girl on the Train, the big screen adaptation of Paula Hawkins' novel of the same name, dropped into UK cinemas this week - and, naturally, as a fan of the female-led thriller, I was there on the opening night. The book seriously impressed and intrigued me on reading on so I was sceptical about what the film would deliver by comparison, if indeed it would delivery anything comparable at all.
For those unfamiliar with either the book or the film premise, the basic idea is this: Rachel (Emily Blunt) takes the train to work every morning, and on that train journey she always sees, from the window of her train carriage, a woman, who we eventually discover is named, Megan (Haley Bennett) and her husband Scott (Luke Evans) (who, quite conveniently, live two doors down from Rachel's old house with her ex-husband now shares with his new wife, but that's another strand of the story). Rachel observes these two characters on and off for an eerily long stretch of time without interacting with either of them. However, when Megan goes missing, Rachel finds herself drawn into the case of trying to find out where Megan is and what happened to her...
The plot, in case you haven't already gathered, is a complex one, however the powers that be behind this film have made a decent attempt at communicating the intricacies of the book on to the big screen - some things have been lost, of course, the three-way narrative doesn't translate quite as well as I'd hoped it would, but it works nevertheless. There is tension, there are twists, and the casting only adds further to the communication of this plot in its entirety. Blunt deserves at least one award for her role in this feature because her delivery of Rachel is just stellar! She acts with determination and conviction from start to finish, making for a believable protagonist who is surprisingly easy to emotionally engage with. Bennett makes for a difficult-to-like Megan, but that feels like the hook of the character and so the film doesn't suffer for it. Then, there is our third narrative strand in the form of Anna - the woman now married to Rachel's ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux) - played by Rebecca Ferguson, who serves her purpose but, for me, does so a little flatly.
Overall there is a star-studded cast here with several familiar faces also popping up for short stints in the film, and the setting that acts as a back drop to this is wonderful. There's a great sense of location as Rachel moves throughout Manhattan which adds a little extra authenticity to the film; it's very firmly rooted in scenes and settings that are familiar to us too, which manages to pack a little extra punch into the harshness of the storyline (just a normal woman from Manhattan, and look what happens, is a feeling very firmly embedded here).
Is it as good as the book? No, but it was never going to be. That being said, The Girl on the Train is a good adaptation of a great novel and it makes for some entertaining viewing on the whole. So if you're looking for some big screen entertainment for the weekend, it's definitely worth a watch.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 8 October 2016
For those unfamiliar with either the book or the film premise, the basic idea is this: Rachel (Emily Blunt) takes the train to work every morning, and on that train journey she always sees, from the window of her train carriage, a woman, who we eventually discover is named, Megan (Haley Bennett) and her husband Scott (Luke Evans) (who, quite conveniently, live two doors down from Rachel's old house with her ex-husband now shares with his new wife, but that's another strand of the story). Rachel observes these two characters on and off for an eerily long stretch of time without interacting with either of them. However, when Megan goes missing, Rachel finds herself drawn into the case of trying to find out where Megan is and what happened to her...
The plot, in case you haven't already gathered, is a complex one, however the powers that be behind this film have made a decent attempt at communicating the intricacies of the book on to the big screen - some things have been lost, of course, the three-way narrative doesn't translate quite as well as I'd hoped it would, but it works nevertheless. There is tension, there are twists, and the casting only adds further to the communication of this plot in its entirety. Blunt deserves at least one award for her role in this feature because her delivery of Rachel is just stellar! She acts with determination and conviction from start to finish, making for a believable protagonist who is surprisingly easy to emotionally engage with. Bennett makes for a difficult-to-like Megan, but that feels like the hook of the character and so the film doesn't suffer for it. Then, there is our third narrative strand in the form of Anna - the woman now married to Rachel's ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux) - played by Rebecca Ferguson, who serves her purpose but, for me, does so a little flatly.
Overall there is a star-studded cast here with several familiar faces also popping up for short stints in the film, and the setting that acts as a back drop to this is wonderful. There's a great sense of location as Rachel moves throughout Manhattan which adds a little extra authenticity to the film; it's very firmly rooted in scenes and settings that are familiar to us too, which manages to pack a little extra punch into the harshness of the storyline (just a normal woman from Manhattan, and look what happens, is a feeling very firmly embedded here).
Is it as good as the book? No, but it was never going to be. That being said, The Girl on the Train is a good adaptation of a great novel and it makes for some entertaining viewing on the whole. So if you're looking for some big screen entertainment for the weekend, it's definitely worth a watch.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 8 October 2016
Movie Review: The Girl With All The Gifts
The Girl With All The Gifts hit cinema screens in the United Kingdom towards the end of September and, from the action-packed trailers that we'd all familiarised ourselves with prior to the release, it was clear that this was a zombie film with a twist. Taking lead from the likes of The Strain, The Girl With All The Gifts explains zombies - or, as they're called in the feature, hungries - away as being the product of a biological anomaly. They're the product of one fungus or another which successfully hijacked the human brain whenever someone comes into contact with the bodily fluids of an infect - so they're still zombies, but as explained by science.
There are, however, some people who aren't infected as modern medicine would expect them to be - and herein lies the hook of the film. We are quickly introduced to Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close) who is researching towards a vaccine that will treat the virus; however, in this research, she is experimenting on children who are human on the outside but hungry in their cravings, and these experiments invariably lead to the death of the child. While this all seems to be for the greater good, eventually her colleague Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) objects to the experiments when Melanie (Sennia Nanua), one of the hungry children, is the latest to be experimented on. In a string of unexpected events, though, many of our central characters find themselves ejected from the safety of their army base and into a world dominated by creatures who are constantly hungry...
The plot itself actually has many riches. There are some wonderful moral complexities in here and, due to our early emotional involvement the characters - Melanie is impossible to dislike - it makes these complexities hit home even harder. The turns and revelations packed in make for some enjoyable viewing but - word of warning - you should brace yourselves for an ending and half because, after the set up we'd received, the final fifteen minutes or so are really where the film fell flat for me. It's impossible to explain thoroughly without giving away some of the bigger moments in the film, but the ending was... convenient, and inconsistent with the main character's behaviours and thoughts up to that point, which is a real shame because the first hour and a half of this was solid.
The two elements of the film that did not disappoint, though, are the staging and the casting. The near-apocalyptic London is (perhaps inappropriately) stunning in this! The shops are looted, the buildings are crumbling and tumbling down intermittently, and everything about the visual on this is eerily accurate, making for an even greater feeling of discomfort on viewing - in the best way, of course. Alongside this, then, the cast we see wander around this derelict city are wonderfully selected. Nanua makes for a wonderful Melanie who is instantly likeable while her loving teacher Helen/Arterton gives an authentic and emotive delivery throughout. These seemingly softer characters are well-balanced out alongside their comrades, though, with Glenn Close delivering her hard-faced character beautifully, joined by the tough-talking Paddy Considine who plays Sgt. Eddie Parks here. Small but perfectly formed, the film largely hangs around this four person plot but it doesn't suffer in the slightest for it. They're a wonderful group of actors who carry the film admirably.
As a whole, it's a mixed bag. It's a good concept that's put together well, but I can't overlook that ending - I just can't! If you're looking for a new take on the zombie genre then it's worth seeing because there are many good things wedged into this film, just clench and ready a grimace for when the ending arrives and you'll be just fine.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 4 October 2016
There are, however, some people who aren't infected as modern medicine would expect them to be - and herein lies the hook of the film. We are quickly introduced to Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close) who is researching towards a vaccine that will treat the virus; however, in this research, she is experimenting on children who are human on the outside but hungry in their cravings, and these experiments invariably lead to the death of the child. While this all seems to be for the greater good, eventually her colleague Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) objects to the experiments when Melanie (Sennia Nanua), one of the hungry children, is the latest to be experimented on. In a string of unexpected events, though, many of our central characters find themselves ejected from the safety of their army base and into a world dominated by creatures who are constantly hungry...
The plot itself actually has many riches. There are some wonderful moral complexities in here and, due to our early emotional involvement the characters - Melanie is impossible to dislike - it makes these complexities hit home even harder. The turns and revelations packed in make for some enjoyable viewing but - word of warning - you should brace yourselves for an ending and half because, after the set up we'd received, the final fifteen minutes or so are really where the film fell flat for me. It's impossible to explain thoroughly without giving away some of the bigger moments in the film, but the ending was... convenient, and inconsistent with the main character's behaviours and thoughts up to that point, which is a real shame because the first hour and a half of this was solid.
The two elements of the film that did not disappoint, though, are the staging and the casting. The near-apocalyptic London is (perhaps inappropriately) stunning in this! The shops are looted, the buildings are crumbling and tumbling down intermittently, and everything about the visual on this is eerily accurate, making for an even greater feeling of discomfort on viewing - in the best way, of course. Alongside this, then, the cast we see wander around this derelict city are wonderfully selected. Nanua makes for a wonderful Melanie who is instantly likeable while her loving teacher Helen/Arterton gives an authentic and emotive delivery throughout. These seemingly softer characters are well-balanced out alongside their comrades, though, with Glenn Close delivering her hard-faced character beautifully, joined by the tough-talking Paddy Considine who plays Sgt. Eddie Parks here. Small but perfectly formed, the film largely hangs around this four person plot but it doesn't suffer in the slightest for it. They're a wonderful group of actors who carry the film admirably.
As a whole, it's a mixed bag. It's a good concept that's put together well, but I can't overlook that ending - I just can't! If you're looking for a new take on the zombie genre then it's worth seeing because there are many good things wedged into this film, just clench and ready a grimace for when the ending arrives and you'll be just fine.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 4 October 2016
Trailer Reveal: Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them Reveals Final Trailer!
The final trailer has been revealed for the seemingly stunning adaptation of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. After teasers, trailers, and artwork galore, the final sneak peak of the film ahead of its release arrived online a matter of hours ago and fans are already in awe of this final snippet.
For anyone who hasn't yet grasped the premise of the film - where have you been? - this latest trailer sets the plot up perfectly and, as if that wasn't enough, it is absolutely packed with impressive animations and endearing creatures, with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. It becomes clear from this that something magical is stalking a city and, like there always seems to be, there is a conflict between the wizarding world and the muggle world that is causing some tense battle scenes in this clip alone. There's magic, mischief, muggles, and much more and the effects in the trailer are enough to make your jaw drop. With an official release date pencilled in for November, this is the last reminder that any of us will need to go and see this film!
You can find the trailer online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 29 September 2016
For anyone who hasn't yet grasped the premise of the film - where have you been? - this latest trailer sets the plot up perfectly and, as if that wasn't enough, it is absolutely packed with impressive animations and endearing creatures, with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. It becomes clear from this that something magical is stalking a city and, like there always seems to be, there is a conflict between the wizarding world and the muggle world that is causing some tense battle scenes in this clip alone. There's magic, mischief, muggles, and much more and the effects in the trailer are enough to make your jaw drop. With an official release date pencilled in for November, this is the last reminder that any of us will need to go and see this film!
You can find the trailer online now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 29 September 2016
Trailer Reveal: Action-Packed first-look Dropped for Trespass Against Us
Trespass Against Us, despite not seeing its official release yet, has been pulling in promising reviews and reports from critics after one or two outings at various film festivals. The film, starring Michael Fassbender, alongside various other familiar faces, tells the story of an outlaw family and the one man who tries to escape it.
The opening of the trailer introduces the father-and-son theme of the film wonderfully, suggesting that the criminal lifestyle Fassbender has inherited from his father is something he should be looking to pass down on to his own son. And from there, the explosions start, literally and figuratively; we watch as jobs are set up and knocked down by these men making for an action-packed teaser.
It's a great set up for the film here and with a release date pencilled in for later this year, this is certainly one worth keeping an eye out for. You can check out this footage for yourselves now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 September 2016
The opening of the trailer introduces the father-and-son theme of the film wonderfully, suggesting that the criminal lifestyle Fassbender has inherited from his father is something he should be looking to pass down on to his own son. And from there, the explosions start, literally and figuratively; we watch as jobs are set up and knocked down by these men making for an action-packed teaser.
It's a great set up for the film here and with a release date pencilled in for later this year, this is certainly one worth keeping an eye out for. You can check out this footage for yourselves now by clicking here.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 September 2016
Full Length Trailer Revealed for Sci-Fi Flick, Passengers
After a teaser or two hitting the internet in recent weeks, we finally have a full length trailer for Passengers to feast on - and what a trailer it is. Dropped on YouTube just a few hours ago, the two minute introduction to the film is a star-studded, action-packed preview that raises more questions than it answers and sets a high bar for the full film.
Science fiction to its core, the trailer introduces Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt who have both, at some point, decided to leave earth to take part in a hibernation experiment. With a number of humans placed in isolation pods on a space station, the plan was for those taking part to wake up after 120 years - but something has gone wrong, which sees our two stars wake up early, and it looks like a whole load of other things are set to keep going wrong after that. A promising introduction, it's a great tease that has set up an intriguing premise, and you can check out the trailer clip for yourselves now by clicking here. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 21 September 2016 |
Tense Trailer Released
|
Movie Review: Blair Witch
The first Blair Witch film was a masterpiece in both tension and horror. The found footage formula it used added realism that played on the audience's deepest fears. This new film, then, released earlier this month, has in turn worked hard to retain everything that made the original so fantastic whilst adding its own unique twist to the "being lost in the woods" feel.
The film starts off impressively. While the first film focused on Heather, Josh, and Mike's journey, this focuses on Heather's brother years later. This set up is intriguing and enables the characters to be quickly established, making them easy to buy into from the off.
The wonderful thing about the original Blair Witch was that it created a mythology that was well thought out. In this, that same mythology is expanded on in a nice homage that doesn't feel forced.
The film's quick pacing brings about some truly terrifying moments. A one take search for firewood turns into a thrilling chase that doesn't let you catch your breath for a second. The characters, though not fully developed, feel real. James' frustration when he thinks his goal of finding his sister is unattainable is well done by showing what motivates the character and this relate-ability and humanity carries them all well throughout the film.
In a genre dominated by gore, it’s a joy to watch something that messes with your head rather than with your stomach! The end scene may not be as subtle as the first but it is certainly just as haunting. The moment when Lisa goes through the tunnel stands out for being a great dose of claustrophobic tension.
Comparing the two productions almost seems sacrilegious, though. Whilst the original had the chilling ending, the update feels like your worst nightmares come alive. It’s definitely worth going to see it, but do beware the witch…
Written by: JD Grant
Published: 19 September 2016
The film starts off impressively. While the first film focused on Heather, Josh, and Mike's journey, this focuses on Heather's brother years later. This set up is intriguing and enables the characters to be quickly established, making them easy to buy into from the off.
The wonderful thing about the original Blair Witch was that it created a mythology that was well thought out. In this, that same mythology is expanded on in a nice homage that doesn't feel forced.
The film's quick pacing brings about some truly terrifying moments. A one take search for firewood turns into a thrilling chase that doesn't let you catch your breath for a second. The characters, though not fully developed, feel real. James' frustration when he thinks his goal of finding his sister is unattainable is well done by showing what motivates the character and this relate-ability and humanity carries them all well throughout the film.
In a genre dominated by gore, it’s a joy to watch something that messes with your head rather than with your stomach! The end scene may not be as subtle as the first but it is certainly just as haunting. The moment when Lisa goes through the tunnel stands out for being a great dose of claustrophobic tension.
Comparing the two productions almost seems sacrilegious, though. Whilst the original had the chilling ending, the update feels like your worst nightmares come alive. It’s definitely worth going to see it, but do beware the witch…
Written by: JD Grant
Published: 19 September 2016
Television News: The Great British Bake Off is Moving to Channel 4 - Without Mel and Sue
There has been a chorus of dismay from fans of The Great British Bake Off up and down the country over the last forty-eight hours or so following the news that the BBC's much-loved baking show will be making an unexpected jump to Channel 4, due to a financial clash with the powers that be behind the hit series.
It is being widely reported that Love Productions - the name behind the show, and the owners of GBBO - has perhaps stumbled upon a little greed, which has allegedly seem then request a whopping £25 million from the BBC in order to keep air rights to the show. Which the BBC has, understandably, said they simply cannot provide.
The first blow, then, came in the form of the news that Channel 4 could provide a big enough lump of cash and had, by default it feels, won the show for 2017. The second blow? Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc will not be making the move.
That's right. When The Great British Bake Off goes it will be going without its hosts, who have become as loved as the series has itself, and so this has already raised a number of questions about the potential success of the show not only on a different channel, but also with so many additional changes as well. As yet it is still unknown whether Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry will be making the jump - more updates will follow in the coming days, no doubt, as negotiations close - and we also have those pesky Channel 4 advertisement breaks to take into account now as well.
While the initial backlash of this is strong, there are still many kinks to be ironed out in the framework for the old show on a new channel, so stay tuned for updates.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 14 September 2016
It is being widely reported that Love Productions - the name behind the show, and the owners of GBBO - has perhaps stumbled upon a little greed, which has allegedly seem then request a whopping £25 million from the BBC in order to keep air rights to the show. Which the BBC has, understandably, said they simply cannot provide.
The first blow, then, came in the form of the news that Channel 4 could provide a big enough lump of cash and had, by default it feels, won the show for 2017. The second blow? Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc will not be making the move.
That's right. When The Great British Bake Off goes it will be going without its hosts, who have become as loved as the series has itself, and so this has already raised a number of questions about the potential success of the show not only on a different channel, but also with so many additional changes as well. As yet it is still unknown whether Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry will be making the jump - more updates will follow in the coming days, no doubt, as negotiations close - and we also have those pesky Channel 4 advertisement breaks to take into account now as well.
While the initial backlash of this is strong, there are still many kinks to be ironed out in the framework for the old show on a new channel, so stay tuned for updates.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 14 September 2016
Movie Review: Don't Breathe
Don't Breathe? Don't bother. This film is an uncomfortable mis-blend of genres that sees a perfectly sound storyline completely ruined by the intrusion of another storyline, which feels much like a last minute 'Hey, what if?' from the writers behind the film. The premise introduced by the trailer is that three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) - break into a blind man's house (played by Stephen Lang) to steal a considerable amount of cash. The Blind Man (his official character name in this film, might I add) came to possess this cash following a car accident that killed his daughter resulting in a considerable cash pay-off from the family of the driver.
So far, so good, right?
Admittedly the trailer hinted that there was more to The Blind Man than we perhaps originally thought. With a colourful military history in his past he turns out to be quite the opponent to the three youngsters, beating them physically and intellectually at every turn - which, again, is entertaining enough. What is less entertaining is the twist of the film. It's a twist I didn't fully see coming - I knew there was something, but wouldn't have guessed this - and I didn't at all appreciate because not only what is it not necessary, it was also taken way too far.
Don't Breathe would actually be a wonderful film if the final quarter of it was cut. There are false endings - which left me with a heavy 'Oh, c'mon now!' feeling - and a scene that is so unpredictable and so uncomfortable that myself and my partner in viewing were both grimacing at the screen - and I can't speak for him, but I am most definitely not a squeamish viewer on the average day.
The casting here is wonderful, though! Levy makes for a great lead who plays the role with conviction while Minnette makes for an endearing boy-next-door sidekick who gets caught up in the wrong deal. Lang is stunning in this role, too; he's eerie before his darker side even emerges making for a great atmosphere throughout. Oh and let's not forget the staging of this! The floorboard creaks have never been used to greater effect than they are here. The scene shot entirely in the dark - featured in the trailer - is another high point making for enjoyably tense viewing, so there are definitely good elements in the film. As a whole, though, Don't Breathe has well and truly caved on itself when it comes to fitting into a genre to the point that I can't pinpoint who would watch this film. I went expecting thriller, but the horrific scenes towards the end take it firmly out of that genre and into something else that I didn't expect or want.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 12 September 2016
So far, so good, right?
Admittedly the trailer hinted that there was more to The Blind Man than we perhaps originally thought. With a colourful military history in his past he turns out to be quite the opponent to the three youngsters, beating them physically and intellectually at every turn - which, again, is entertaining enough. What is less entertaining is the twist of the film. It's a twist I didn't fully see coming - I knew there was something, but wouldn't have guessed this - and I didn't at all appreciate because not only what is it not necessary, it was also taken way too far.
Don't Breathe would actually be a wonderful film if the final quarter of it was cut. There are false endings - which left me with a heavy 'Oh, c'mon now!' feeling - and a scene that is so unpredictable and so uncomfortable that myself and my partner in viewing were both grimacing at the screen - and I can't speak for him, but I am most definitely not a squeamish viewer on the average day.
The casting here is wonderful, though! Levy makes for a great lead who plays the role with conviction while Minnette makes for an endearing boy-next-door sidekick who gets caught up in the wrong deal. Lang is stunning in this role, too; he's eerie before his darker side even emerges making for a great atmosphere throughout. Oh and let's not forget the staging of this! The floorboard creaks have never been used to greater effect than they are here. The scene shot entirely in the dark - featured in the trailer - is another high point making for enjoyably tense viewing, so there are definitely good elements in the film. As a whole, though, Don't Breathe has well and truly caved on itself when it comes to fitting into a genre to the point that I can't pinpoint who would watch this film. I went expecting thriller, but the horrific scenes towards the end take it firmly out of that genre and into something else that I didn't expect or want.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 12 September 2016
Disney Promises Beauty and the BEast Teaser Release
The live action Beauty and the Beast film that's set to arrive from Disney has been causing excitement amongst new and old fans alike since its original announcement. The information on the film has been thin on the ground however a small snippet was recently dropped online to roll out the banners for a bigger snippet - as is Hollywood's way - that's due to arrive today.
The sneak peak look at production, including a table reading of a small segment of the script - which can be found by clicking here - promises an exclusive look at the upcoming theatrical release. So keep your eyes peeled over the day for our first real peak at what promises to be a beautiful Disney release. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 6 September 2016 |
Sony Make Bid to Keep Daniel Craig As James Bond
While the world is still placing misguided bets on who will bag the role of James Bond, it seems that Sony themselves are still backing Daniel Craig for the role.
The actor, who has reportedly stated that he would never return to the 007 role, has now been offered an eye-watering $150 million to do just that. The next Bond feature isn't due for another two years, thankfully, so the firm has a little while to turn Craig around on the decision - and with a fee like that, offered in exchange for him featuring in two further Bond flicks, Sony look to be going all out to keep the actor on their books. Barbara Broccoli also made no secret of the fact that she didn't want a new Bond, commenting: 'Maybe I'm in denial, but I don't want to think about another Bond.' Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 6 September 2016 |
TV News: The X factor Makes Its Return to ITV
As far as I can see the return of The X Factor pales in comparison to the return of The Great British Bake Off, but the singing competition is a mostly stable element of ITV’s yearly line-up so its return to television probably deserves a note.
The series made its return yesterday evening – Saturday, August 27th at 8pm, and it will be back for a second episode at the same time tonight – with a new, sort of, judging panel and a familiar face in the presenter spot. And, following on from a fairly gruesome season of the show last year, the first episode of this latest season set sail with a pleasing start. Dermot O’Leary has replaced Olly Murrs and Caroline Flack, while the judging panel has been given yet another reboot, the time sporting Louis Walsh – who we apparently really cannot get rid of – alongside Sharon Osbourne, Nicole Scherzinger, and of course Simon Cowell. As first impressions go the four appear to work well together, although we’re one episode in and I’m already plagued by the concern of acts being put through with the sole purpose of peeing off Simon Cowell – Honey G, I’m looking to you there. Walsh, Osbourne, and Scherzinger are out to make mischief/mildly more entertaining television, but given the mixed opinions around the show already it feels a little too early on in this latest season for the show to make a parody of itself (there are enough people waiting in the wings to take on such a job already). Nevertheless, for better or worse The X Factor is back and as always it seems good for a few laughs, and cringes. Yesterday’s episode is available online now and you can tune in for another mixed bag of it this evening at 8pm on ITV. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 28 August 2016 |
TV News: The Great British bake Off is back!
It’s back! The Great British Bake Off, the tent, the bakers, the Paul and the Mary – it’s all back and in this week’s opening episode it was all about as glorious and sugar-coated as it always is. Season seven of the hit series – a talent show for bakers really is one of the finest things that modern television has managed to do – launched on Wednesday, August 24th, and the country has been beside itself with excitement ever since.
The first episode introduced us to twelve new bakers who were put to the test during cake week, and after an hour of tense viewing I had already decided on two things: I’m a little bit in love with Val, and lemon drizzle cake is one of the finest things available to us in this world. For fear of spoilers – don’t panic! – I’ll keep my mouth firmly shut on the matter of the opening week's Star Baker, likewise on the topic of which contestant was the first to leave. I will however say that this opening episode was an entertaining medley of colourful sponges and half-baked cakes, complete with a chorus of, ‘How do they not know what a jaffa cake looks like?’ sandwiched somewhere in the middle of the episode. Oh and Mary’s face! Mary’s gloriously horrified at seeing Paul’s animalistic display of dunking a jaffa cake in his tea is something that will stick with viewers for life, I’m sure of it. It’s a much welcome addition to our weekly line-up of television and, if we have to suffer through another stint of The X Factor over on ITV, at least we have The Great British Bake Off to soften the blow for a while. You can find the first episode online now and you can tune into the second episode – for Biscuit Week! – on Wednesday, August 31st, on BBC One at 8pm. Written by: Charlotte Barnes Published: 28 August 2016 |
Movie Review: Lights Out
Lights Out is the latest horror film to arrive on the big screen, setting an impressively high bar for the features that will follow later in the year. The film is a short release – coming in at around only one hour and twenty minutes – but don’t let that tarnish your view of it; this is, hands down, one of the creepiest films that I’ve had the pleasure of seeing for some time.
The premise of the story is this: Martin’s (Gabriel Bateman) dad dies, he’s murdered under fairly gory circumstances – although nothing much ever seems to be said about this – which leaves Martin in the custody of his heavily depressed mother, Sophie (Maria Bello) – and her friend Diana (Alicia Vela-Bailey). Eventually Martin starts falling asleep at school due to the terrifying disruptions in his home life; it isn’t until Martin’s sister Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) gets involved that even bigger questions start to arise, though. Once thought to be a childhood delusion for Rebecca, it now becomes clear that Martin – and his problems with Diana – are all too familiar territory, and the siblings must pair up to finally discover what Diana is, and how they can get rid of her.
There are neat little plot points that make this difficult to discuss in depth – no spoilers, though, I promise – but rest assured that there are some really nice touches here in terms of the storyline. My main criticism is that the ending is set up far too early; in a film this short it should have been held back longer, rather than dangled on a string how it is, but we can overlook that mostly. There are complexities and surprising revelations – although the major twist is sorted of ruined by that pesky ending that I mentioned – and so as horror flicks go, this is certainly ticking a lot of the major boxes.
In terms of the casting, it’s commendable. Bateman’s delivery throughout this is consistent, professional, and genuinely quite touching as the film explores his poignant relationships with the women in his family – no matter how crazy they may appear to be. Maria Bello delivers a marvellous portrayal of an over-bearing bout of depression and Palmer’s constant frustration towards this is a lovely accompaniment.
The most enjoyable element of the film, for me, is that this doesn’t go for the gore; it goes for the scare. As you’d expect, perhaps, from something that sports the name of James Wan on the production team, Lights Out is all about the things that go bump in the light – rather than the things that make you grimace – and the film works all the better for the fact.
A creepy, jumpy horror of old, Lights Out is a brilliant little number and it’s definitely worth a trip to the cinema to catch this.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 August 2016
The premise of the story is this: Martin’s (Gabriel Bateman) dad dies, he’s murdered under fairly gory circumstances – although nothing much ever seems to be said about this – which leaves Martin in the custody of his heavily depressed mother, Sophie (Maria Bello) – and her friend Diana (Alicia Vela-Bailey). Eventually Martin starts falling asleep at school due to the terrifying disruptions in his home life; it isn’t until Martin’s sister Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) gets involved that even bigger questions start to arise, though. Once thought to be a childhood delusion for Rebecca, it now becomes clear that Martin – and his problems with Diana – are all too familiar territory, and the siblings must pair up to finally discover what Diana is, and how they can get rid of her.
There are neat little plot points that make this difficult to discuss in depth – no spoilers, though, I promise – but rest assured that there are some really nice touches here in terms of the storyline. My main criticism is that the ending is set up far too early; in a film this short it should have been held back longer, rather than dangled on a string how it is, but we can overlook that mostly. There are complexities and surprising revelations – although the major twist is sorted of ruined by that pesky ending that I mentioned – and so as horror flicks go, this is certainly ticking a lot of the major boxes.
In terms of the casting, it’s commendable. Bateman’s delivery throughout this is consistent, professional, and genuinely quite touching as the film explores his poignant relationships with the women in his family – no matter how crazy they may appear to be. Maria Bello delivers a marvellous portrayal of an over-bearing bout of depression and Palmer’s constant frustration towards this is a lovely accompaniment.
The most enjoyable element of the film, for me, is that this doesn’t go for the gore; it goes for the scare. As you’d expect, perhaps, from something that sports the name of James Wan on the production team, Lights Out is all about the things that go bump in the light – rather than the things that make you grimace – and the film works all the better for the fact.
A creepy, jumpy horror of old, Lights Out is a brilliant little number and it’s definitely worth a trip to the cinema to catch this.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 August 2016
Movie Review: Finding Dory
Excuse me,children, out of the way. Some of us have been waiting for thirteen years for a Finding Nemo sequel and we finally have it in the form of Finding Dory, which has been floating around stateside for some time now but has only just touched down on UK shores. The big question now, of course, is whether the film has actually been worth the wait - and for those who are yet to see it you'll be glad to know that it has, mostly.
The film follows a similar format to its older brother in that one of our favourite fishy characters - this time around it happens to be Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) - goes missing, or rather, gets lost. For anyone not familiar with the franchise - seriously, where have you been? - Dory is a blue tang fish who suffers from short term memory loss and, as we gathered from Finding Nemo, this led to her losing her family at a young age because she simply couldn't remember where they were. Here we see Dory hit the big screen again alongside Nemo (Hayden Rolence) and Nemo's dad, Marlin (Albert Brooks) only this time around, she can remember something. Cue Dory's quest across the ocean to find her family, and Nemo and Marlin's quest across the ocean to find Dory.
I'm going to come out and say this early on: I don't think this film is as good as Finding Nemo, which is, incidentally, a completely different statement than saying Finding Dory is bad, because it isn't. The animation is well polished, the characters are loveable, the plot feels fairly recycled but hey, that's Hollywood, and the voice actors throughout this feature are superbly cast. So it may not be Finding Nemo, but it's still a good watch.
Some familiar faces make a return here but it's the new ones that really had the audience giggling, with Hank (Ed O'Neill) the grumpy octopus teaming up with Dory for a while, and Destiny (Kaitlin Olson) and Bailey (Ty Burrell) dropped in for a stint as the most endearing characters in this film, as far as I'm concerned.
Overall it makes for easy and heart-warming viewing. Pixar have done well here at churning out a cute sequel to Nemo that is good for a few laughs while also wrapping up the storyline neatly - which is what we all wanted for Dory. Thirteen years in the making, if you loved Finding Nemo, then it's definitely worth checking out Finding Dory.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 3 August 2016
The film follows a similar format to its older brother in that one of our favourite fishy characters - this time around it happens to be Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) - goes missing, or rather, gets lost. For anyone not familiar with the franchise - seriously, where have you been? - Dory is a blue tang fish who suffers from short term memory loss and, as we gathered from Finding Nemo, this led to her losing her family at a young age because she simply couldn't remember where they were. Here we see Dory hit the big screen again alongside Nemo (Hayden Rolence) and Nemo's dad, Marlin (Albert Brooks) only this time around, she can remember something. Cue Dory's quest across the ocean to find her family, and Nemo and Marlin's quest across the ocean to find Dory.
I'm going to come out and say this early on: I don't think this film is as good as Finding Nemo, which is, incidentally, a completely different statement than saying Finding Dory is bad, because it isn't. The animation is well polished, the characters are loveable, the plot feels fairly recycled but hey, that's Hollywood, and the voice actors throughout this feature are superbly cast. So it may not be Finding Nemo, but it's still a good watch.
Some familiar faces make a return here but it's the new ones that really had the audience giggling, with Hank (Ed O'Neill) the grumpy octopus teaming up with Dory for a while, and Destiny (Kaitlin Olson) and Bailey (Ty Burrell) dropped in for a stint as the most endearing characters in this film, as far as I'm concerned.
Overall it makes for easy and heart-warming viewing. Pixar have done well here at churning out a cute sequel to Nemo that is good for a few laughs while also wrapping up the storyline neatly - which is what we all wanted for Dory. Thirteen years in the making, if you loved Finding Nemo, then it's definitely worth checking out Finding Dory.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 3 August 2016
Series Review: Stranger Things
If, like myself, you belong very firmly inside the Netflix generation (doesn’t everyone?) then you will have at least heard of Stranger Things, whether you’ve opted to watch it or not. The eight-episode long series has been causing something of a stir on the streaming site since its release a little earlier this year, and, having polished off the series last night after what I can only describe as an emotional rollercoaster, I can hand on heart say that if you haven’t tried at least one episode of this yet, for the love of God go and watch it before someone has the chance to ruin it for you, because it’s pretty damn wonderful.
Okay, if I can give you some basic plot without taking too much shock value away, then it’s this: Winona Ryder here stars as small town mother Joyce Byers, in a series that is set in 1983. At the beginning of this series Joyce’s son, Will, here played by Noah Schnapp, goes missing under peculiar circumstances and, from that one incident, there spills out eight episodes of government cover-ups and controversies and – as is the way of 80’s inspired releases – and whole load of science fiction themes that will leave you feeling somewhere between disturbed and nostalgic.
The plot intricacies of this release as a whole series make it practically impossible to give you anything resembling an overview without taking some of the major kicks away. On a more general note, then, the whole series is just brilliantly put together. The younger actors in this – Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown, and Gaten Matarazzo in particular – just blew me away from their opening scenes through to the end and on more than one occasion I found myself saying, ‘I just love these kids,’ so convincing, amusing, and emotive are their roles and their deliveries throughout.
The settings are appropriately dark, dank, and claustrophobic adding further to the ambiguous feel that is heavily packed into every episode of this, and honestly it really does make for some wonderfully tense viewing at times.
And if all of that isn’t exciting enough to get you interested in the show, then it might be worth noting that there’s definitely scope for a second season of this and, after the buzz that’s followed the first around, Netflix would be missing a trick if they didn’t return to this concept. So, for fear that you’ll be reading another vague and excited review this time next year without knowing what the hype is about, clear your schedule, shut the curtains, and throw Stranger Things on because you certainly won’t be disappointed.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 July 2016
Okay, if I can give you some basic plot without taking too much shock value away, then it’s this: Winona Ryder here stars as small town mother Joyce Byers, in a series that is set in 1983. At the beginning of this series Joyce’s son, Will, here played by Noah Schnapp, goes missing under peculiar circumstances and, from that one incident, there spills out eight episodes of government cover-ups and controversies and – as is the way of 80’s inspired releases – and whole load of science fiction themes that will leave you feeling somewhere between disturbed and nostalgic.
The plot intricacies of this release as a whole series make it practically impossible to give you anything resembling an overview without taking some of the major kicks away. On a more general note, then, the whole series is just brilliantly put together. The younger actors in this – Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown, and Gaten Matarazzo in particular – just blew me away from their opening scenes through to the end and on more than one occasion I found myself saying, ‘I just love these kids,’ so convincing, amusing, and emotive are their roles and their deliveries throughout.
The settings are appropriately dark, dank, and claustrophobic adding further to the ambiguous feel that is heavily packed into every episode of this, and honestly it really does make for some wonderfully tense viewing at times.
And if all of that isn’t exciting enough to get you interested in the show, then it might be worth noting that there’s definitely scope for a second season of this and, after the buzz that’s followed the first around, Netflix would be missing a trick if they didn’t return to this concept. So, for fear that you’ll be reading another vague and excited review this time next year without knowing what the hype is about, clear your schedule, shut the curtains, and throw Stranger Things on because you certainly won’t be disappointed.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 25 July 2016
Movie Review: Me Before You
Me Before You was dropped in UK cinemas way back at the beginning of this month, however it’s showing no signs of slowing down in popularity with many cinemas maintaining their regular viewing times for what has turned out to be a smash hit film.
Based on a novel of the same name by Jojo Moyes, Me Before You tells the story of Will Traynor (Sam Claflin) who, after being involved in a motorbike accident, is severely paralysed. Will’s parents make every effort to find a suitable carer and they eventually hire a local – intolerably happy, might I add – girl called Lou Clark (Emilia Clarke). Will and Lou form a surprising bond during their time together and, as you’d expect from a YA-book-based film, laughter and total heartache soon follow.
Ahead of seeing this film I had already decided I was going to cry at one point or another – one point or another turned out to be several points scattered throughout the film. It’s heartbreaking but beautiful. Claflin and Clarke have an absurdly easy onscreen relationship that develops convincingly throughout the feature, with amusing interludes appearing from the likes of Lou’s boyfriend Patrick, played by Matthew Lewis who – despite being a bit of a filler character at times – did a wonderful job of pulling some laughs and eye-rolls from an otherwise emotionally traumatised audience.
Janet McTeer and Charles Dance, taking to the roles of Camilla and Stephen Traynor respectively, were wonderfully cast and caused their own share of heartache in the film. Again, though, this was counteracted by another amusing character in the form of Nathan, Will’s on-hand physiotherapist, played brilliantly by Stephen Peacocke who was not only an integral character during some of the more serious scenes, but he was also a naturally funny buffer when he needed to be as well.
The film is beautifully set over a seaside back drop that adds wonderfully to Lou’s small-town-girl persona and overall the presentation of this film is very well polished. A brilliant feature, whether you’re a YA fan or not (ordinarily, I am not), this film is definitely worth a trip to the cinema to see – and it’s definitely worth wearing waterproof mascara to see it as well.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 20 June 2016
Based on a novel of the same name by Jojo Moyes, Me Before You tells the story of Will Traynor (Sam Claflin) who, after being involved in a motorbike accident, is severely paralysed. Will’s parents make every effort to find a suitable carer and they eventually hire a local – intolerably happy, might I add – girl called Lou Clark (Emilia Clarke). Will and Lou form a surprising bond during their time together and, as you’d expect from a YA-book-based film, laughter and total heartache soon follow.
Ahead of seeing this film I had already decided I was going to cry at one point or another – one point or another turned out to be several points scattered throughout the film. It’s heartbreaking but beautiful. Claflin and Clarke have an absurdly easy onscreen relationship that develops convincingly throughout the feature, with amusing interludes appearing from the likes of Lou’s boyfriend Patrick, played by Matthew Lewis who – despite being a bit of a filler character at times – did a wonderful job of pulling some laughs and eye-rolls from an otherwise emotionally traumatised audience.
Janet McTeer and Charles Dance, taking to the roles of Camilla and Stephen Traynor respectively, were wonderfully cast and caused their own share of heartache in the film. Again, though, this was counteracted by another amusing character in the form of Nathan, Will’s on-hand physiotherapist, played brilliantly by Stephen Peacocke who was not only an integral character during some of the more serious scenes, but he was also a naturally funny buffer when he needed to be as well.
The film is beautifully set over a seaside back drop that adds wonderfully to Lou’s small-town-girl persona and overall the presentation of this film is very well polished. A brilliant feature, whether you’re a YA fan or not (ordinarily, I am not), this film is definitely worth a trip to the cinema to see – and it’s definitely worth wearing waterproof mascara to see it as well.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 20 June 2016
Movie Review: Alice Through the Looking Glass
Alice Through The Looking Glass is the long-awaited sequel to Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland which was released in cinemas back in 2010. The sequel, fans will be pleased to know, sees many of the original cast members return for a second stab at Underland and Burton also returns in his role as producer for this movie and my, can’t we tell.
This second film sees Alice return to Underland/Wonderland, this time to save the Mad Hatter who has fallen ill leaving many of his friends – Tweedledee/Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), Mallymkun (Barbara Winsor), and Chesire Cat (Stephen Fry) – in genuine fear for his life. To help him, Alice must travel back in time however, and it turns out that Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) isn’t too happy about that – understandably so when we see the fallout that Alice’s endeavour causes throughout the film.
First things first, let’s deal with the plot! It’s a sound premise that deals with the Looking Glass well although there are times when the whole thing feels a little spoon-fed. Alice visits the Hatter, sees his trouble, and then quite suddenly everyone around her seems to know exactly how they can fix the problem – but they also know that they themselves can’t possibly do this, leaving the role up to Alice. It’s necessary, I know, but the execution of it lacked the fluidity that the first film had.
Moving on from that, though, the film is aesthetically stunning throughout – although Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter appeared slightly overdone in the make-up department for his first stretch in the film – and Burton has clearly scattered his trademark stamps here. We shift between extreme uses of colour from one scene to the next and, after a particularly dramatic opening that sees a near-shipwreck plastered across the screen, it’s instantly clear where Burton’s influence has come in. The characters themselves also fit into this aesthetic discussion because they’re put together wonderfully. Anne Hathaway’s White Queen is as ghostly pale and brilliantly acted as she was the first time around while Helena Bonham Carter is magnificent as the Red Queen and, much to my delight, the time-turning plot even answers some questions about these two characters and their ongoing feud.
Mia Wasikowski returns to her role as Alice with ease, picking up right where she left off the last time and delivering the role with utter conviction making for a determined and believable display. For me, however, the character that really surpassed expectations was Time. Cohen’s delivery was superb! The character was rough around the edges, but extremely likeable, and he made for a brilliant complication in the film at times.
Overall Alice Through The Looking Glass is a decent watch. If you’re a fan of Burton or the Alice franchise – whether that be books or films – then you’ll get on with this film, because how could you not? There are elements that could have been a little smoother for me, but as a whole the film makes for good viewing and it’s certainly worth a trip to the cinema to check it out.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 1 June 2016
This second film sees Alice return to Underland/Wonderland, this time to save the Mad Hatter who has fallen ill leaving many of his friends – Tweedledee/Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), Mallymkun (Barbara Winsor), and Chesire Cat (Stephen Fry) – in genuine fear for his life. To help him, Alice must travel back in time however, and it turns out that Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) isn’t too happy about that – understandably so when we see the fallout that Alice’s endeavour causes throughout the film.
First things first, let’s deal with the plot! It’s a sound premise that deals with the Looking Glass well although there are times when the whole thing feels a little spoon-fed. Alice visits the Hatter, sees his trouble, and then quite suddenly everyone around her seems to know exactly how they can fix the problem – but they also know that they themselves can’t possibly do this, leaving the role up to Alice. It’s necessary, I know, but the execution of it lacked the fluidity that the first film had.
Moving on from that, though, the film is aesthetically stunning throughout – although Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter appeared slightly overdone in the make-up department for his first stretch in the film – and Burton has clearly scattered his trademark stamps here. We shift between extreme uses of colour from one scene to the next and, after a particularly dramatic opening that sees a near-shipwreck plastered across the screen, it’s instantly clear where Burton’s influence has come in. The characters themselves also fit into this aesthetic discussion because they’re put together wonderfully. Anne Hathaway’s White Queen is as ghostly pale and brilliantly acted as she was the first time around while Helena Bonham Carter is magnificent as the Red Queen and, much to my delight, the time-turning plot even answers some questions about these two characters and their ongoing feud.
Mia Wasikowski returns to her role as Alice with ease, picking up right where she left off the last time and delivering the role with utter conviction making for a determined and believable display. For me, however, the character that really surpassed expectations was Time. Cohen’s delivery was superb! The character was rough around the edges, but extremely likeable, and he made for a brilliant complication in the film at times.
Overall Alice Through The Looking Glass is a decent watch. If you’re a fan of Burton or the Alice franchise – whether that be books or films – then you’ll get on with this film, because how could you not? There are elements that could have been a little smoother for me, but as a whole the film makes for good viewing and it’s certainly worth a trip to the cinema to check it out.
Written by: Charlotte Barnes
Published: 1 June 2016
