Passengers

(Warning: contains spoilers for Passengers)

If this picture doesn't go here, the thumbnail for the link will be of T2 which would be very confusing.

I wish trailers could develop the art of showing less.  Over the past year (in particular, for some reason), I've seen a joke, an action sequence, a reveal that would have packed a huge punch if I had been watching it "fresh" for the first time, rather than for the 15th because of trailers.  Here are three examples off the top of my head:

1.  Doctor Strange
Chiwetel Ejiofor's character gives Benedict Cumberbatch's a piece of paper with an unfamiliar word on it. 
"Is this my mantra?" wonders Cumberbatch. 
"No," says Ejiofor "it's the Wifi password.  We're not barbarians."
Nice line the first time.  Diminishing returns.

2.  Trainspotting 2
Spud appears to fall off a high rise building in Edinburgh, before being caught by Renton just before he hits the ground.

What I assume to be a beautiful moment of tension, which I'm now anticipating.

3.  Passengers
Jennifer Lawrence tells Michael Sheen that she and Chris Pratt are on a date.  The camera pans down to show that he is an android, human from the waist up, metal from the waist down.

I mention this, because Sheen's entrance in the film is a surprise and confusion.  Pratt's character, Jim, wakes up on the Avalon, a spaceship on a 120-year mission to reach Homestead II where the 5000 passengers and 247 crew will set up their new home.  A computer glitch leads to Jim's hibernation pod awakening him.  He realises he is 30 years into the journey, no one else is awake, and he has no way of going back to sleep.  In his befuddled state he wanders round this state of the art deck seeing no one until he catches sight of Arthur (Sheen), bartending to nobody.  Conversation ensues, and Arthur doesn't give any clues that the situation is anything less than normal.  Until he goes to pour Jim a drink, and we (and Jim) realise that Arthur is not human.  That would have been a great reveal, had the trailers not told me.
"Just don't watch trailers, then" is the obvious solution.  The problem is that trailers are everywhere.  I saw the trailer for this film, for example, during advert breaks on television, before YouTube videos downloaded, at the cinema waiting for other films to start, on giant screens in the middle of city centres.  It was a trailer that was impossible for me to miss.  Conversely, it also made the film intriguing enough that I wanted to watch it.  No win situation.
The flip of this is that I saw the trailer for La La Land repeatedly since August.  I knew it excited me, I knew wanted to see it, I hadn't a clue what it was about. 
Conclusions:
1.  It is possible to give a spoiler free gist of a film to whet the appetite.
2.  For some reason, the majority of film companies don't like this approach.

Back to Passengers.  I'll be honest, I liked this film a lot more than I was expecting to.  The main criticism I had heard about it was it's ethical dilemma, and I was unsure what to make of it myself.  Jim, after a year by himself, happens upon the hibernation pod of Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence).  He likes the look of her, reads her files and profiles, and then spends a considerable amount of time wrestling with the decision of whether to wake her too and condemn her to the same lonely death as him.  It's not a decision taken lightly, the tipping point coming when Jim finds himself considering suicide.  It is not good for man to be alone.  He wakes her.  I understand that there's been some criticism of this decision.  There are arguments that it's a "bit stalkery" at best, or another example of a man exerting his authority over a passive woman.  I don't think it's an issue because I think the film resolves it. 

Aurora and Jim have a really good time together, until she discovers what he has done and goes berserk.  She challenges what he has done, physically attacks him, and refuses to engage with him further, thus condemning him back to his lonely life.  And for Jim's part?  He agrees with her.  He accepts her response.  He doesn't even try to explain what he's done.  He knows it was - for want of a better phrase - an assault, and not her choice.  He knows he was wrong.  Horrible circumstances led him to make a horrible choice, which has horrible consequences for her - but I think this film and these characters come to resolution about this, which does not excuse his actions.

Yeah, the reason is that you woke her up.
Idiot.

Overall, it's an interesting film and not (in my opinion) deserving of the criticism it got.  It poses a number of interesting questions and ideas - what would you do in similar circumstances, how AI is almost human (but not quite), can anything actually replace human interaction?  Worth seeing, and (as with most space films) worth seeing on a big screen.


Additional thoughts, comments and questions.
1.  The division in passenger types is an interesting gimmick.  Jim is a discounted passenger who can have basic amenities because he has paid for a lower ticket.  Even in his year by himself, he cannot access any of the higher class passenger amenities.

2.  The spaceship malfunctions and tried to kill them.  This seems to happen a lot with spaceships in films.  Maybe we stay on Earth, people.

3.  How well would any of us do if left without company for a year.  Not very well, according to this study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/people-would-rather-be-electrically-shocked-left-alone-their-thoughts

Moana

(Warning: contains spoilers for Moana, and probably a whole lot of other Disney films)

We are in the middle of a new age of Disney.  You must have noticed - that suddenly even the harshest critics are grudgingly admitting that Let It Go is a pretty catchy tune and that Zootropolis was one of the better films of 2016 (yes, it was about bunnies but it also had Breaking Bad references).  Actually we're in the middle of the fourth Disney-era, commonly known as the Disney Revival Era. There's been the Golden Age (everything from 1937 to the 80s, including Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty etc), the Renaissance Era (everything from 1989-99 including Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aladdin), the Post-Renaissance Era (2000-07, ending with the merger with Pixar, films including Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch), and now the Disney Revival Era (2008 to date, including Tangled, Frozen, Big Hero 6).

To me, the interesting thing about the Disney Revival Era is the correction of popularly held tropes from Golden era Disney.  Where Cinderella teaches that if you wish hard enough and just sit there, all your dreams will magically come true, The Princess and the Frog teaches that having a dream is fine, but you'll have to work for it.  Where Sleeping Beauty emphasises the importance of true love, Frozen allows that true love can, in fact, come from your family and maybe you shouldn't agree to marry the first man you sing a song with if you don't know anything else about him.  Disney women in the 21st century are tougher and more independent creatures, and that's part of the reason why there's currently a petition to have Princess Leia added to that pantheon of princesses.

Into that mix comes Moana, which is the story of a Polynesian tribal heir who is chosen to restore the heart of the goddess Te Fiti, and thus restore the failing fortunes of her tribe's island.  There is the usual singing and dancing, but there's a number of notable key features:

Two sidekicks!  And that little turtle from Finding Nemo! 

1.  No love interest
This is unusual.  Moana is the 56th animated Disney film but the last film where the main character was female and human and had no love interest was 2002's Lilo and Stitch.  There isn't even the mention of wanting a partner, it's just not an issue ("but she's only 16, Caroline!" "yes, but so was Ariel, and Jasmine was only 15.").

2.  Both parents survive                

Hey, you just couldn't wait to be king...

Parents don't do well in Disney films.  Main characters are usually orphans (e.g. Aladdin), or one parent has remarried (usually after the death of the first, usually the mother - e.g. Snow White), or one parent dies during the film (e.g. Mufasa).  In the past 20 films, I think there might be just three instances where the main character comes from a two-parent family who begin and end the film together.  I will buy a Disney film for the first person who can name them.  But Moana has two parents, who are still alive by the time the credits roll.  Hurrah!

3.  Non-white culture
There's not a lot of diversity in Disney.  Human heroines tend to be Caucasian and skinny with long straight hair.  Moana shares a platform with Lilo and Pocahontas as being a main character with a different kind of body type. Excellent.  More of this, please.
The references to Moana's culture are interesting - we learn of their community way of life, their references to their ancestors and their heritage, and the significance of their tattoos.  More importantly, we learn about these things in a way that feels organic, rather than heavy-handed. 

I just really like this film.

My understanding is that Moana did receive some criticism from the Polynesian community because of a lack of female goddess to match the demi-god Maui.  Specifically, the goddess Hina (a companion to Maui) was missing, an importance which is explained in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/goddess-hina-the-missing-heroine-from-disneyʼs-moana_us_5839f343e4b0a79f7433b6e5

4.  Compromise
Disney is full of independent women who want to defy their parent(s) and live out their own dream, but this usually manifests in the parents learning that the kids are right and should go and do their thing.  I can't think of any examples outside of Moana where the hero manages to balance their dreams with their responsibilities.  Ariel went off and lived in the human world, Sleeping Beauty married the man of her dreams (who accidentally happened to be her betrothed).  Moana gets to explore life outside the reef as a wayfarer (what she wanted), while also leading her tribe (what her parents wanted).  Fair play.

But the thing that particularly interested me - Restorative Justice in a Disney film.  Actually, Restorative Justice at all in a film.  Maui recognises the harm that he has done to Te Fiti, apologises and makes it right in a way that is acceptable to Te Fiti.  This pleases me.

This is a film worth seeing.  It's full of positive messages, redresses some unhelpful Disney tropes, and seems to directly reference Mad Max: Fury Road, while there's a giant crab who sings like David Bowie.  What's not to like?

Mad Max?  Surely that's a Mad Max reference?

La La Land

(Warning: contains spoilers for La La Land,

Hello and happy new year.  It's January, which means one thing (according to the trailers for this film) - Oscars season!  Disclaimer from the outset - I am a sucker for awards fodder.  This year is no exception.  While a lot of the films for the rest of the year are a smorgasbord of candyfloss and tapas (and that one thing that you tried because you were curious and you weren't sure what it was exactly), Oscars season is just steak.  Good, solid, substance to get your teeth into.  Fine by me.

This year seems to be a plethora of heavy duty T-bone, though.  Everything seems to be death (Jackie, Manchester by the Sea), war and death (Hacksaw Ridge), or emotional trauma  (and possibly death, I'm not sure) (Lion).  And it's not like you can find much sweetness and light in real life at the moment (death of hope, dreams and sanity as we know it).

So, thank goodness then for La La Land, popping into a gloomy January with Technicolor singing and dancing in the Los Angeles sunshine.  This is Damien Chazelle's writing and directing follow up to 2014's Whiplash (a fantastic film which is a walking stress-dream and well worth your while if you haven't already seen it).  La La Land stars Ryan Gosling (Sebastian) and Emma Stone (Mia) in their third film together (the other two being Crazy, Stupid, Love and Gangster Squad).  Sebastian is an idealistic (but flat broke) jazz pianist, who keeps bumping into Mia, the barista aspiring to be an actress.  They meet-cute, meet-cute, and meet-cute again before tentatively starting a relationship and encouraging each other to stop doubting and follow their dreams (with some more singing and dancing thrown in for good measure).

Well, that's lovely isn't it?  Not according to Damien Chazelle.  A few themes recur from Whiplash.
1.  I LOVE JAZZ!  JAZZ IS BRILLIANT!  JAZZ!  JAAAAAAZZZZZ!
2.  You can be brilliant at the thing you love, or you can be happy.  Make a choice.

Hmm.  Slightly less lovely.  Mia and Sebastian consider their options, encourage each other, make their decisions and live with the consequences.  For better or worse.

So, what do I think?  I loved it.  It already feels like an iconic film, and one that will be referenced back to in the arts (in their varying forms) for years to come.  It looks beautifully stylised, it sounds fantastic, there is a definite "stickiness" to its soundtrack.  Gosling and Stone are fun and sparky, and enjoyable to watch.  It's frequently surprising because it fiddles with convention with fantasy elements.  It's a fraction too long, and for a film that's so sharp it could be leaner (which is partially as a result of it's structure - scenes in a play, rather than a continuously linear film).
Film lovers will catch the references and homages to other films - I count Sliding Doors, Singing in the Rain, Casablanca, Up, Fame, Dangerous Minds (meets the O.C.).  I imagine there's a lot more.  To me, if Moulin Rouge and When Harry Met Sally had a child it would be La La Land.

And for the meta-critics amongst us, there's this exchange:
Sebastian:  I love it.
Mia:  You don't think it's too nostalgic?
Sebastian:  Nostalgia is great?
Mia:  What if people don't like it?
Sebastian:   Fuck 'em.

Thanks, La La Land.  Very helpful of you.

And if you're still not sure - watch this trailer.  This is the Marmite test.  Enjoy.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

1.  I think there's some kind of colour coding in the film.  Blue seems to signify winning - it's the colours in Seb's club, the colours Mia wears when she successfully auditions.  Red is also a successful colour, but I'm not sure how it differs from blue.  Yellow seems to be the colour that keeps them apart - the colour of the casting directors clothes, the band's touring clothes, Mia's general cynicism.  There seems to definitely be a language there, but I haven't quite worked it out fully yet.  That is something that will take multiple viewings.  Which I am delighted about.

Or it's an homage to the Teletubbies

2.  The reason it's a 12A: one use of the word "fuck".

3.  For discussion: does this film end happily ever after?