Snowden

(warning: contains spoilers for Snowden)

I'm baffled by the Edward Snowden story, if I'm honest.  Here we have a guy who leaked classified information from the government, thus exposing that there's illegal mass surveillance going on without our permission.  The government, with the most tenuous of reasons, can then access our phones, webcams, emails, etc - both historically and in real time - to see what we're up to.  Snowden is now one of the most wanted men in the world.  And...we all seem ok about this?  Maybe a bit disgruntled, but I don't see anyone decrying technology and going to live off the grid.  Here I am blogging about a film about it.

And how do we feel about Snowden anyways?  He's exposed a major governmental and international surveillance scheme (well, that's good right?).  And now he's sought refuge in Russia, and Putin has granted him asylum (wait, aren't Russia the bad guys?).  Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Barack Obama have spoken out against Snowden's actions (those guys don't really agree on anything, do they?).

That said, the government have acknowledged that they want to avoid another major terrorist event like 9/11 and so it's important to be able to quickly access any information on any person for any related reason, no matter how tenuous that reason...

If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then what does any of this mean?

Ponder...

 Let's just look at the film...

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the lead role in this Oliver Stone film, based on The Snowden Files and Time of the Octopus.  The film provides some biographical background into Snowden, and how injury meant he left the army, came to work for the NSA, and discovered the illegal mass surveillance operations being performed without the knowledge of the public, post 9-11.  This interweaves with "present day" Snowden feeding this information secretly to journalists Glenn Greenwald (Tom Wilkinson) and Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) so the information can be made public.

The cast is impressive, and it feels like these actors (including Nicholas Cage, Rhys Ifans, Shailene Woodley, and Zachary Quinto) are all making a tacit acknowledgement that they stand with Snowden in protest of the governments overarching surveillance programme.  That it is an Oliver Stone film feels like it should be a more bombastic affair, screaming about injustice and controversy, but this film feels like it's come and gone as quietly as the story of Snowden itself.  Why is this not grabbing more attention?

In some ways, it's a bit like I, Daniel Blake, inasmuch as it's a film with a message to convey, rather than a story to tell.  And bits of that story become clunky in trying to get the message across.  An early conversation between Snowden and his girlfriend Lindsey Mills seems like a series of straw man arguments about privacy in order to make a point.  The film quietly nudges us to remember all the ways in which we are surveyed in our day to day lives - from webcams and texts, to the websites we access, to CCTV and GPS.  For me, there was a more interesting story in what was happening to Snowden personally as he tried to come to terms with all he was discovering - his relationships suffer, his physical health suffers, his mental health suffers, and he becomes increasingly paranoid that he is being watched (although, arguably, is it paranoia if someone really is watching you?)  A chilling moment comes near the end of the film, when Snowden admits to his NSA mentor Corbin O'Brian (Rhys Ifans) that he is worried that his girlfriend is cheating on him - O'Brian tells him not to worry about it - he's already checked Lindsey's social media, texts and emails.  He can guarantee she's not.

I feel I should be leaving this film incensed.  But I'm not.  This is an important story, and it hasn't been well told.  In fact, I'm advised that Citizenfour is the one to watch to get a better factual understanding of this story as a whole.  So let's look that one out instead.

But I did leave the film feeling paranoid.  I can be traced to the cinema, from the CCTV that was there when I walked in.  I can be traced to the film from the details accessed on my cinema card.  Even the food I ate can be traced by the details on my receipt and bank card.  And as soon as the credits started, all the cinema screens in the cinema went off unexpectedly...

Legitimate wear for the 21st century?

True story.

Allied

(warning: contains spoilers for Allied)

I pondered many things when I watched Allied.  I doubt any of them were the thing that I was supposed to be pondering.  I now ponder whether that is a comment on the film itself...

Allied is a spy romance/thriller directed by Robert Zemekis (Back to the Future, Castaway, Forrest Gump) and starring Brad Pitt (Se7en, Fight Club) and Marion Cotillard (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises).  During World War 2, Max Vatan (Pitt) gets a secret spy assignment to infiltrate a party and kill some bad guys.  His "wife" for the purposes of this operation is Marianne Beausejour (Cotillard).  Her main role is to make their "relationship" looks convincing.  Later in the film, Vatan is told that there is intelligence that suggests that Beausejour is a double agent, passing secrets to the enemy.  He now has to work out if she is, and (if she is) kill her.  Can you really have a healthy relationship when you know that you and your partner are professional liars?

Ooh.  Well, that's very exciting.

Well, it's not really.  It's perfectly fine, but it lacks a bit of...something.  I'm not sure what it is.  All the ingredients add up very well, but the end product isn't quite right for some reason.  It's very odd, because the component parts seem spot on.  Let's break this down a little...

The plot is great - read that second paragraph again and tell me it's not intriguing.  You can't, can you?  And there's something very pleasing to me that the plot can be described so succinctly.  It tends to be the sign of a good film if you can describe it in about 100 words.  Bam - everyone knows where they stand and off we go...

The stakes are clearly set out.  The viewer knows what's going on, and why it matters.  I am particularly fond of this.  My main criticism of bigger blockbusters (particularly action packed ones) is that main characters go to a place and do a thing for tenuous reasons like "because the script made me do it".  With Allied, I knew what everyone was doing and why at all times.  That's pleasing.

There's some sneaky social issues there without it being "An Issue".  Vatan is aware that some of his compatriots are lesbians.  It's barely mentioned.  This pleases me.  Why?  Because it's normalised.  It's just not an issue.  This is a greatly encouraging sign for alternative sexualities in films.  Not that named characters are labelled as "the gay ones", but that there are named characters who happens to be gay.  Short of a guarded "ssh - be careful you don't get found out" (because this was still a court-martial-able offence in 1942), it's not a major plot line.

The set pieces - there are one or two stand out pieces which really elevate this film.  Namely, the assassination mission (which is slickly executed - ha, pun - which feels like it's been directly lifted from a Tarantino movie) and the party in the Blitz (where an airplane crashes into a house).  Both pieces are visually impressive and well choreographed.

The tension.  Zemekis does a great job of taking a small everyday noises (particularly ticking clocks), fading out all the ambient noise and bringing that one noise (ticking) to the fore.  It's very effective.  And the central questions - is she a spy?  And if she is, will he kill her? - are ones that kept me guessing until the end of the film.  I was interested in the answers to those questions, so the film must have had something going for it.

Which leads me to my ponderings.

1.  Is "chemistry" between actors an actual thing? 

Not that chemistry

I have read interviews with actors who swear that it is, and other interviews where actors say that acting is just pretending so you can pretend to get on with someone.  I ask this question because a lot of reviews have claimed there is no chemistry between Cotillard and Pitt, and others have taken this a step further and claimed it as proof that Cotillard was the reason that Pitt's marriage to Angelina Jolie ended.  I couldn't tell either ways.  I found Cotillard very compelling.  There was a certain clunkiness to the relationship, but given that it was an artifice (and this is what the film was about), isn't that to be expected?

2.  Is Brad Pitt a good actor?  I can't decide.  Every so often, he has a stand out part in a stand out film (Se7en, Fight Club) but outside of that, he seems like Brad Pitt playing Brad Pitt.  Also, for those of you playing the "will Brad Pitt eat food in this film" drinking game, make sure you line your stomachs before viewing.

3.  My test: if, partway through this film, the film stopped working (for whatever reason) and I was given a ticket to come and see this film again for free, would I use the ticket? 
The answer is yes.  I wanted to see how this story played out.  But it just lacked a certain something - a bit of zip, a bit of flourish.  A certain something unhelpfully untangible. 

Rogue One

CONTAINS ENORMOUS SPOILERS

Here’s a picture of Alan Tudyk and his character in Rogue One.

He used to be Wash in Firefly.

His Rogue One droid K2SO is cool, more grown up than C3PO and R2D2. K2SO is a liberated droid with a mind of his own.

In this movie the leading lady’s love interest      

Cassian Andor

takes a long time to notice her. I was beginning to think this might be a decision in the interest of PC, like the very noticeable racial diversity casting. After a bit I imagined her wondering if she smelled or something. Eventually, after she gives him a lovey dovey look, he starts acting like a love interest.

All this may be explained by the rewrites…

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/01/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-reshoots-disney

…perhaps originally there was no romance.

Peter Cushing is brought back to life as Grand Moff Tarkin. He's still very good.

Not everyone was happy with the resurrection.

My feeling is that as an actor he would have liked the chance to be seen again and would only have cared whether his reviews were good. The trouble is we can’t be sure. I understand Robin Williams made provision to prevent anyone doing this to him. I hope a fat fee was paid to Cushing’s descendants and that they had a say in how he was used.

The story provides a plausible explanation for the heroes’ success against the Death Star in Star Wars. It’s a retcon but in a good way.

133 minutes is at least ten minutes too many and the lengthy, if inventive, action scenes as usual lost me after a while. But that’s probably just me being bored by action scenes, however good, if they go on for more than five minutes.

Although it is established that she can fight well and defend herself, Jyn’s main role is as an inspirational leader; I didn’t find Felicity Jones’s performance very convincing. She is supposed to have sufficient charisma to make everyone in the room listen to her. I don’t think I would have listened to her. Strong women need to be strong.

Basically, I can’t imagine her selling me insurance much less leading me into battle.

There was also an older woman X wing pilot in a tiny role who sounded terribly lame. Did she even know what part she was playing? Pity, as older women were not, apart from this tiny and poorly acted role, included in the otherwise diverse mix.

There were some less than elegant lines in the script, which the actors succeeded in polishing up to sound OK. ‘I have heard word of rumours…’ ‘ We will find out how to find it.’

Most of the script was competent but lacking in sparkle. When blind Chirrut Imwe has a bag put over his head he says ‘You’re kidding! I’m blind!’ Now I can’t help thinking that would have been funnier if he’d just said ‘Really?’ or ‘You’re kidding’. However the argument in favour of this flatfootedness might be that some of the audience is 5.

A number of planets were introduced very briefly. God knows I couldn’t remember their names and most of them hardly seemed necessary. If these were fan nods, and I realise there have to be fan nods in this movie, they shouldn’t be distracting for comparatively casual viewers like myself. Also very confusing for the 5 year olds.

We watched this in 2D and I don’t think it suffered too much as a creation from the lack of a third dimension. I find 2D versions of 3D movies muddy and discoloured and blurry though. Couldn’t a separate 2D version be made that looks brighter and colourful? I’ve been thinking of watching an old technicolor movie or two to see what I’ve been missing. Rogue One did avoid the camera pans that look so awful and blurred when watching a 3D in 2D.

Come to think of it the decline in colour and clarity seemed to start just before 3D came along, so some of this effect may be due to the switch to digital from film. But I digress.

I liked the characters of Bodhi Rook and Chirrut Imwe.

Bodhi Rook

Riz Khan as Bodhi stood out for me and seemed to really believe in his part in a way that, say, Felicity Jones did not. I also appreciate seeing someone of his name and ethnicity being cast as a hero.

Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus

Chirrut Imwe is on the left. On the Right is Baze Malbus, Chirrut's best friend and comrade. Some folk think they are a same sex couple. I can't say it occurred to me but I'll be looking for any signs if I rewatch.

I haven’t mentioned a villain. Well, the one we have here is a minion of Darth Vader’s, Orson Krennic. He strides about a lot in a white cloak and uniform giving himself airs but really is just a minion with ideas above his station.

Jyn and her antagonist Orson Krennic

I haven’t mentioned Darth Vader. He is in this movie just enough. Not too much, not too little. He has a nice entrance scene where we see the only light saber in the movie.

Now the biggest spoiler. Though I feel sorry for anyone trying to avoid it.

There’s a reason this story has been touted as ‘standalone’. Every major character who appears, excepting Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin obviously, ends up dead. If this is a history we don’t know who told the tale…though some of the small ships escaped the final battle.

This ending is not unsatisfying. Everyone has died for a great cause which has succeeded. The lovers get to embrace and die together. I did not feel invested enough in these characters to feel very sad for them and would be happy not to see them again. That pilot though – could he have survived somehow? Maybe he has a clone somewhere. In the last scene a familiar character appears with a CGI'd in face that, contrary to that of Moff Tarkin, looks very 'off'. We see this only for a second or two but it still needed to be done better. The face shape and the way the features sit on the face look wrong to me. Sorry I can't explain more technically. You will understand when you see this brief scene.

Rogue One is generally a good film and I’d give it 8.5 out of 10 for achieving what it set out to do. More energised acting and direction could have added pizazz to its characters’ interactions and a wittier script would have been a great enhancement. 

The Lobster

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

So yesterday I watched The Lobster (dir. Yorgos Lanthimos). It came up on my Netflix recommendations and the tagline seemed strange and I like strange films so I pressed play.

The world that The Lobster is set in is one where everyone has to have a partner. If they don't have a partner, you are sent to a hotel where you have 45 days to find one. If you don't find one at the end of the aforementioned days, you are turned into an animal of your choosing. The main character in this film, David (Colin Farrell), when asked which animal he wants to turn into, says he wants to be turned into a lobster because "lobsters live for over one hundred years, are blue blooded like aristocrats, and stay fertile all their lives. [He] also likes the sea very much".

The plot line is reasonably predictable, but the way it happens isn't. There are similarities between our actual society and the one presented in The Lobster, sure, which makes it incredibly clever, but the initial "wait, what?" at the beginning of the film takes hold for the rest of it. The film is narrated throughout by a character the audience only knows as Short Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz), David's love interest for the last half of the film.

During David's stay at the hotel, he fails to fall in love with someone. He does meet someone and pretends to have something in common with them, but he leaves her and runs away from the hotel when she kicks his dog (who happens to be his brother) to death in their bathroom. David joins the Loner gang - a collective of people who have all escaped the hotel and live in the forest - and falls in love with Short Sighted Woman there. But, contrastingly to the hotel and rest of the world, you're not allowed to fall in love if you're a Loner. David and the Short Sighted Woman create their own coded language because they can't talk to each other. Short Sighted Woman says in the narration, "we’ve developed a code so that we can communicate with each other, even in front of the others, without them knowing what we are saying. When we turn our heads to the left, it means, “I love you more than anything in the world.” And when we turn our heads to the right, it means, “Watch out, we’re in danger.” We had to be very careful in the beginning not to mix up “I love you more than anything in the world” with “Watch out, we’re in danger.”"

The film portrays the polar opposites of a society obsessed with partnering up. Love in this film isn't the fairy tale definition, wrapped up in destiny in fate, but simply a chemical state, and the joining of two people that have something in common. In this world you're allowed to have a relationship but you're not allowed to be in love.

It's utterly bizarre and there are some moments where I was fighting laughter; one in particular was a slowed down chase between an attendee at the hotel called The Lisping Man (John C Reilly) and a Loner. Another funny moment is one where the owner of the hotel (Olivia Coleman) is giving a short speech to a couple that have just paired up. "The course of your relationship will be monitored by our staff and by me personally." She says. "If you encounter any problems, any tensions, any arguing, that you cannot resolve yourselves, you will be assigned children. That usually helps, a lot." It's hard not to laugh every time she speaks since what she's saying is usually mental. Her and her husband are, as well as being in charge of the hotel, the hotel entertainment. They sing songs together and this provides a few laughs.

Character wise, the audience knows very little about the back stories of the pretty much all of them. All we know about David is that he has an ex-wife who left him for a man with contact lenses. We find out a little about the Limping Man (Ben Wishaw), as he says in AA meeting style in front of everyone at the hotel, "Hello everyone. My mother was left on her own when my father fell in love with a woman who was better at math than she was. She had a post graduate degree I think, where as my mother was only a graduate. I was nineteen at the time. My mother entered the hotel, but didn't make it and was turned into a wolf." Also the characters aren't played with much emotion. I found out that Lanthimos would tell the actors involved to just say their line rather than deliver it, which, if you're a well trained actor, must be pretty difficult to do. Farrell and Weisz hit the mark, though. I have seen both of them in other films that are beautifully acted so I know that they're not just type-casted bad actors, but that in fact they have done incredibly good jobs with their respective characters.

Aside from the strangeness of the film, it is beautifully shot. I found out thanks to google that the film was shot nearly entirely without make-up and without artificial lighting. It's also filmed in a beautiful place, too (County Kerry, Ireland (republic)). Stills from it make it look like a hipster indie film, akin to Submarine (dir. Richard Ayoade), and Juno (dir. Jason Reitman).

Needless to stay this film is probably going to be one that sticks with me for a while. Mainly just because I can never look at animals the same way ever again (and I even know about #piggate). I'd like to have tea with Yorgos Lanthimos and I'll probably buy other films of his. He calls The Lobster 'a rom-com like no other', and I think I agree.