Film reviews from @shane_dillon

Gilda (1946) dark, entertaining and arty.

My film review of Gilda has a wonderful song from the film called Put The Blame On Me Mame (see below).  I saw Gilda at the British Film Institute. This song is the stripped down one that would later appear in Gilda as a big show stopping number.  Gilda (1946) is an exercise in art and entertainment. The first twenty minutes of the film are littered with homo erotic overtones. Glenn Ford plays Johnny Farrell who meets the boss of a casino in Buenos Aires in unlikely circumstances. Once they meet they form a threesomen with the casino boss Ballin Mundson played by George McCready in the manner of a High German. The third wheel in this relationship is Ballin's killer cane. In true noir fashion Gilda's role that Rita Hayworthy does not just play, she inhabits, lives and smokes the role. In true noir fashion she is of course Johnnys former lover. Buenos Aires is a fine place for Johnny and Gilda to be washed up. Gilda later marries casino owner Balinn and so begins a triangulated noir love story between all three. The killer cane moves aside. At times you have reason to question Johnny Farrells relationship with the high German casino owning Ballin? the script delivers dialogue between them that enhances that suspicion.

The script delivered by the characters like many of the best films from the forties is sharp. Dialogue is seldom wasted just passing information to the audience. Instead it is a weapon of war to inflict emotional damage. This would some twenty five years later  be very much evident in Fassbinders 'The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant' (1972)

Gilda (1946) strives to entertain and like the scene below, Gilda strums the guitar but then in high Hollywood costume belts out the number in a more conventional stage nite club scene.

The direction from Charles Vidor and camerawork Rudolf Mate make this film visually very interesting. In one scene we get casino owner Ballin threaten both Gilda and Johnny Farrell but while we see his body we do not see his head, instead we hear only his voice. Truly menacing stuff when seen on big screen.

Gilda is a fine example of Hollywood at its best, combining the noir tradition with art cinema flavored with good old entertainment values.

Horrible Bosses: Broad comedy, some laughs, worth seeing though not essential.

Cinema some will say is an escapist form of entertainment. We go to the cinema to escape from reality. For many of us work is an uncomfortable reality. So why go to a film set in the workplace. The film Horrible Bosses (2010) gives us reasons; to laugh at work, its bosses and feed our fantasy of revenge. This is a broad comedy which is at its best when the scenes are inside the workplace. We have three to choose from; a corporate office, a chemical factory and a dentist. In the first we have Kevin Spacey as the boss from hell. Well not quite hell, Hollywood, he just rewires the role he played in 'Swimming with the Sharks (1994) remember this line:

You are nothing! If you were in my toilet I wouldn't bother flushing it. My bathmat means more to me than you.

In Horrible Bosses he plays nasty very well against Jason Bateman the overlooked corporate cliche. Next a dental assistant who works under the nymphomaniac attentions of head dentist played by Jennifer Aniston. She revels in the role and again plays well against Charlie Day's character who plays him like a vulnerable Woody Allen. To sum up Jennifer Anniston's performance which incidentally is the best in the film you should listen to Belle and Sebastian's 'Step into My Office" to get the measure of her. 

We need to talk
Step into my office, baby
I want to give you the job
A chance of overtime
Say, my place at nine?

Lastly to the chemical factory were the new boss is the son of the recently deceased manager played all to briefly by Donald Sutherland. Step in Colin Farrell the son who outlines his strategy for the chemical company as one that will use it as an ATM. Soon the chemical factory is party palace. Jason Sudekis is the opposite here. The opposites are cartoonish in the tradition of most comedy. This is comedy at cliche level but its funny and it makes no claims to break new ground. 

The film departs the workplace to quickly. Which is a shame as the best comedy is within the workplace but instead the three characters who languish under the torture of a Horrible Boss get together in a group style like that of The Hangover (2009) 

All three decide to take out their bosses, if only it could be that simple. Cue the patchy comedy. The film acknowledges the plot of Throw Momma from a Train (1987) So each character does a reconnaissance on each others bosses before moving in for a kill. But these are nice guys so darkness does not prevail. Circumstance and coincidence help keep the comedy ticking over. If you want a dark comedy try Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) So when they break into the druggy bosses (Colin Farrell) house, a cross between the interiors of an Elvis mansion and Al Pacino's pad in Scarface, we get the cocaine scene from Annie Hall (1977). Jamie Foxx steps in as a murder consultant under the name Mother Fucker Jones, his performance like others is brief but he keeps it on the right side.

Overall what you get is a broad comedy with comedic sex provided by Jennifer Aniston as a kind of X Rated Blake Edwards film. Though it would be fair to say a little more up front than Skin Deep (1989) Aside from Aniston the other performances are hardly stretching for the actors but you get the impression they enjoyed making the film. Maybe you will enjoy watching it.

Just blogged from Source Code to Strangers on a Train the very best films featuring a train.

The recent film Source Code (2010) despite it’s cyber setting has at its heart the train.  The soldier played by Jake Gyllenhaal wakes up in the body of a stranger  on a train that is about to be bombed.  Using a secret program called the Source Code he is returned to the train over and over again to identify the bomber. Needless to say Source Code is just one film in a long line that have used the train as a central not just a peripheral part of the film. Indeed the origins of cinema itself have trains at there centre. For the first audiences a moving train appearing on the screen would send some running from the theatre. Over the years the car became central to American cinema and the Road Trip was born and often repeated. 

However I wish to consider only the train, that form of transport that brings so many characters together in one space where the action plays out at incredible speeds ,on the roof, underneath or inside the carriages. Can I see your ticket? thank you, lets now look at the very best films that take the train seriously or otherwise:

Narrow Margin (1990) Gene Hackman and Anne Archer hoofing between carriages in a stylish action film that harks back to the 1950's. 

Strangers on a Train (1951) What better place to concoct the perfect murder, why the train, you've got plenty of time, a table and someone opposite you to put the proposal too. Not sure this film would work on a United Airlines flight to Denver.

Throw Momma from a Train (1987) De Vito's homage to the film above  but much funnier. In this film you even get an outdoor model train set in the park if my memory serves me. Classic line when Billy Crystal's character say to momma "I am a friend of Owen" to which the formidable Momma played by Anne Ramsey "Owen doesn't have any friends"

Source Code (2010) I have to mention this film as it got me thinking about this blog post. The film returns to the train over and over again to replay an eight minute sequence in the style of Ground Hog Day. The opening of the film shows us other forms of transport, mainly the car but then settles on a train hurtling towards disaster.  The film is concentrated on one carriage rather than the entire train.  

Dr. Zhivago (1965)  The vast expanse that of Russia is utilised to the hilt by David Lean who uses the train as a microcosm of revolutionary Russia.  As an annex to Dr Zhivago the film by Warren Beatty ‘Reds’ (1981) has the train at it’s most visually stunning. 

Murder on the Orient Express (1974) adapted from the novel by Agatha Christie.  This version directed by the late and great director Sidney Lumet take the train and its carriages as a hall of mirrors. We enter and think we know what is going but instead the train becomes a wonderful labyrinth of mystery.

So there we have it, the mighty train in some of the best loved films of our times, please leave a comment with your suggestions, this list is far from complete.  However I want to leave you with an excerpt from one my favorite directors the irrepressible Ken Russell.  The plane has indeed been a formidable rival to the train especially within American cinema and the legend that is the ‘mile high club’ has a long tail indeed.  However the train can rival that club and more as this excerpt from Russell’s film the Music Lovers (1970) shows.  This puts the mile high club to shame with a hysteric drunken romp aboard a train overlaid with the music from Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique"-Symphony

 

 

Shirley Henderson star of the film Meek's Cutoff.

She was interviewed at the Bfi Southbank, London. She also starred in Michael Winterbottoms film Wonderland.

My film review of ‎#MarkRomanek's #NeverLetMeGo take on #KazuoIshiguro's novel

Of Gods and Men (2010) Not just a religious film.

 

“Under threat by fundamentalist terrorists, a group of Trappist monks stationed with an impoverished Algerian community must decide whether to leave or stay.”  This is how IMBD describe the film Of Gods and Men (2010) but the opening few lines extenuate what is very much a crude understanding stating that they where ‘under threat from fundamentalist terrorists” the fundamentalists depicted are unpleasant but the film is equally suspicious of the army. Based on a true story we do not to this day know who killed the Trappist monks but the film is not wholly concerned with apportioning blame but instead seeks to celebrate and understand their humanity as explained in this article in the Catholic Herald.  That said some understanding of the situation in Algeria can help avoid seeing the film as IMBD did and this timeline from the BBC is a useful starting point.

This is a film that lives more in the head rather than within the walls of a monastery set here in the Atlas mountains.  Already a big hit in its native France ‘Of Gods and Men’ though on the surface is a film about monks, it would be wrong to suggest this film is squarely aimed at a religious audience.  Their is much for the non believing humanist.  The monks are racked by doubt and have none of the certainty that religion purports to deliver.  These monks are as far from a religious fanatic as you can get and one even tries his hand as an ‘Agony Aunt’.  

The film depicts the role of monks as opposed to priests and my guess would be that the film would be a harder sell should it have been about priests rather than monks.  However from a humanist perspective the monks provide a great deal of humanity.  Not for them a fine church but rather a monastic building that is sparse with touches of modernism.  Coupled with their provision of medical welfare and a taste for gardening this for a moment appears to be the good life.  The monks in the film do not eschew religion as we see many scenes were they are engaged in prayer.  However what I think signals the humanist values is not just their consideration for those around them but also in scenes that display the monks as not having blind faith but instead harbouring doubt.  Brother Luc who is the doctor though an ensemble his character is the most drawn.  In one scene he is no longer just a monk but something of an agony aunt for one young village women who comes to him with questions of the heart. Though it must be noted these are French monks so 'problemes de l'amour' are not out of bounds. 

They do not hark after a martyrs death but as one monk puts it when deciding whether to leave or face the possibility of death “I became a monk to live”.  Though the monks live the life of religious faith as death comes closer they recede not into prayer but instead crack open a few bottles of wine and listen to Tchaikovsky's ‘Swan Lake’.

This slow film based as it is around the moral dilemma that the monks find themselves; should they stay or go? Has within a far bigger questions and ones that touch on what is termed the ‘Clash of Civilizations’. We see from the outset of the film the monks are not an alien force competing with Islam. Instead they are integrated into the customs and rhythms of village life.  They provide welfare to villagers by in the form of medical aid.  The  provision of medical and welfare facilities is a hallmark of some resistance movements who provide a shadow state in opposition to that provided by the internationally recognized state.  However for the monks this provision begets another moral dilemma as they intend the villagers to benefit not the local militias.   This is the quandary the film puts the monks inside and it would be tempting to view the environment depicted here which it must be noted is pre 9/11 in the 1990’s as a microcosm of the later environments that would grow to extenuate division by keeping what are sometimes termed the  Islamic and Christian worlds apart.  The film is not explicit at apportioning blame for this but it is interesting that no clear distinction of good or bad labels are appended to government forces who seemingly wish to protect the monks and local militias who are a threat to the monks and everyone else who do not kow tow to their extreme brand of Islam. The suggestion is that more secular rather than religious concerns give rise to extremism; poverty and injustice.

The film is set in a monastery this physical space is not central to the film, paramount is what is happening inside the heads of the monks.  As an audience we look at each monk wondering what is he thinking?  Will he stay or leave the monastery faced as it seems by certain death. 'We are like birds on a branch' is how one monk describes their dilemma This monastery is in fact a very sparse physical space sharing more in common with a Youth Hostel.  Other films have used the physical space of the monastery to better effect like for example the Name of the Rose.  Also Black Narcissus gave cinema goers a very stylized convent.  The film does have small degree of the documentary style about it but for the most part the film is stunningly shot, has a driving narrative and a sense of place that is beyond the monastery walls.  Unlike other films that as documentaries seek to depict living within rather that outside the wall.  The monks are not fenced in and are better for it.

Of course the irony Of Gods and Men is that the film is lacking in music so this scene coupled with close ups of the monks faces is so stunning, the camera pans down the line we see an acceptance of fate that no amount of dialogue could ever convey.    The absence of a soundtrack littered with Gregorian chants supported by synthesizers is something of a relief.  

Overall this is a film that imbues the viewer with hope for humanity we know prior to the film that the monks who remained will be dead.  However the film charts a journey that is as every bit rewarding as journey to the moon.  Their journey takes place within the monks but without speaking the film skillfully allows you to take a look inside and engage, identify or just sympathize with their dilemma.  In this the film shares a trait with the films of Tarkovsky and will I am sure find an audience for many years to come. 

My new blog post: Everyone else has their top ten #film2010 so here are mine, so let it be known ..

 

At the end of each year some films stick in the mind others less so and some you want to forget.  The true test of a film is not necessarily how it hangs around the mind at the end of the year but can it be recalled in ten years time.  Lists are commonplace now in cinema writing from top ten to the thousand best films.  Numerically the sky is the limit and most of the publications that publish top ten lists do so merely to call attention to the rest of the magazine, a hook of sorts.  So why should I do a top ten well firstly for my own self reflection on a years worth of cinema going and if others find it interesting then all is well.  

My list is only based on around fifty five films all seen at the cinema none on television or DVD.  This might sound snobbish but I am interested here in cinema and I think one requirement is that you actually go inside a cinema to watch the film.  Thankfully how we watch cinema is changing especially the auditorium were cinema viewing ideally takes place.  Venues like the Roxy near London Bridge and less well known Sands Film Studio are spaces to watch film that are far less formal than a conventional cinema.  They evoke the atmosphere of the film club crossed with the living room but it does get you out of the house and into a more communal space. 

So without further ado here are my top ten films of 2010 some of which I have reviewed so please click on the link and have a read. Or you can read all my film reviews here on the lovingly: named:http://pip.posterous.com/

 

Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)

A beautiful film exquisitely edited. 

The Road (John Hillcoats) 

A Single Man (Tom Ford) 

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Werner Herzog) 

Please Give (Nicole Holofcener) 

The Illusionist (Sylvia Chomet)

Not normally a fan of animation but this really surprised the representation of Edinburgh on big screen is a s good as Woody Allen’s screen evocation of New York in the film Manhattan.

The Social Network (David Fincher) 

Another Year (Mike Leigh)

A social scorecard of a film, just where are you in life at a certain age.  Different characters, different results but each richly drawn by Leigh.  The ending is emotionally draining in much the same way the ending of The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (Fassbinder, 1972)

Inception (Christopher Nolan) 

When Your Strange (Tom DiCillo)

If you get a chance catch this in the cinema rather than wait for it to come on BBC 4 (Dave for the middle classes).  This really is The Doors in your face with pumping sound and rare footage of live performances that look every bit as chaotic as a punk gig. 

 

Calling the films below the worse films I have seen in 2010 is somewhat unfair they are instead films that have let me down.  Cinema shares something with football you pay your money but when the curtain has raised you can feel disappointed, let down or just wondering why on earth you paid twelve quid to see that film. 

Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton)

Just could not get into this film and above all having seen it in 3D which may have prejudiced me against the film.  I am no fan of 3D get back to the 1950’s where you belong.

 

Predictions for 2011

1. Nobody will win a prize at the Edinburgh Film Festival as they will not be giving any out.
2. Sorkin will win an Oscar for best screenplay.
3. There will be less 3D films released at the cinema.

My review of the new #SofiaCoppola film #Somewhere

Somewhere (2010) is the new film from Sofia Coppola daughter of Francis Ford Coppola.  She is though a successful film maker in her own right.  However coming from a family so steeped and successful in Hollywood does have a bearing on her new film.  Basically she knows her stuff and it is tempting to view the child Cleo played here by Elle Fanning as having something of the Sofia about her. Like many of the child actors today she does a pretty good job. Cleo is the eleven year old daughter of a Hollywood hotshot actor played here by the respected actor Stephen Dorff.  The question the film asks but whether it answers is a mute point is this;  does Johnny reevaluate and improve his life under the influence of what is an unexpected visit from his daughter?   The potential here is for one of those maudlin self improvement films to the sound of the ‘we believe that children are our future ….”.  Happily this is not the case.

The film that preceded 'Somewhere' was  Maria Antoinette (2006) a stylised version of her life as if told by new romantics tinged with with shades of Ken Russell.  Her latest film by contrast is more languid and less in your face.  One feature that has deteriorated is the music which we come to expect from a Sofia Coppola film.  Indeed the soundtrack to Maria Antoinette (2006) partly powered the film whilst for Virgin Suicides music inhabited the film.  However for Somewhere the music tracks feels less important and more functional with The Police’s ‘So Lonely’ getting an outing.

This is very much a film in the slow lane unlike the fast car Ferrari that Johnny drives.  The film opens slowly and is marked by sparse dialogue however the film is far from silent.  This is the strength of Sofia Coppola she creates what many directors strive for but fail; she creates atmosphere.  Johnny Marco is not introduced at a party or on the set of a film but in a succession of hotel rooms mainly empty ones. However these are filled occasionally with pole dancers who arrive in his room with there own poles.  We see some text messages that denigrate Johnny we get to hear that he is indeed an “asshole”.  Noises are heard in the background but hardly any dialogue.  Ironically more significant  than dialogue is the sound of Johnny's sports car. The spell is broken when a cheerleader pops her chewing gum bubble to cause a  fast edit into a new scene.  

Considering the languid first twenty minutes this pop could induce an audience to jump form their seats.  To be clear this is an unashamedly  art-house film that has shades of Antonioni and Gus Van Sant.  Indeed the cinematography is done by Harris Savidas who worked with Gus Van Sant on Gerry (2002) and Elephant (2003)  but best of all The Yards (2002).  What Savidas does for the film is to give 'Somewhere' a slightly washed out look a kind of anti-Hollywood.  This is not the crazy pyschotic town as shown in Altman's The Player (1992) but instead has more in common with Bernard Rose’s  Ivans XTC.  

There comes a point in any film coming from a Hollywood studio when the art has to stop and some excitement is required.  This can sometimes be a change in gear that is a murder, car chase  or a fantastic spectacle that gets the audience engaged.  Sofia Coppola does not disappoint with a surreal trip to Italy as Johnny is required to go their to promote a film. Cue the chaos of people, press and cameras as we enter a world of Stardust Memories (1980)  The contrast is quite striking from the more languid depiction of  Hollywood as seen from Chateau Marmont. For it is in Italy that we truly appreciate that Johnny is indeed a big star.  All the Italian scenes are played on what Spinal Tap would call an eleven, crazy interviews, awards ceremony featuring trophy cats and questions from a member of the press enquiring about his workout explaining that he is writing a book on the body building secrets of Hollywood stars. 

The central relationship if you could call it that is between Cleo and Johnny.  In lesser hands this set up could have easily become what is common currency in cinema the  feel good redemptive relationship.  After all her father Johnny combines all the vices under one roof; alcohol, drugs and vice to name just three. Of course his daughter Cleo who gets to hang out with him playing video games and sitting awkwardly when he sits a new women down at the hotel breakfast table.  They are very much opposites; she is young and he is old for his age; Cleo at eleven is more organized than Johnny a man to whom the voice of what we can assume to be his agent organizes much of his life.   She is graceful in movement, a budding flower of beauty and innocence with an awareness for ballet.  Of course this is in sharp contrast to Johnny’s who’s interest is in a bit of art house pole dancing (though art house stripping was done to great effect in Atom Egogyas Exotica, compliments of Leonard Cohen music).  The performance from Elle Fanning is quite subtle, she fits into scenes and is not outside.  

Her character does not nag Johnny who for a Hollywood star begins to look like a homeless man towards the end of the film.  In a nutshell twee emotions are mostly avoided with only one example of the tear ducts opening.  

This film is by no means everyones cup of tea but if you like your films slow and ambient then ‘Somewhere’ is worth your time.  As a depiction of the film world nothing in this film will surprise especially the characterization of a Hollywood star on a low point is something of a cliche.  However Stephen Dorff is always watchable as Johnny and Cleo (Ellen Fanning) hold your interest within a film that has been enveloped in atmosphere.  

My new blog post about The Social Network, a film for our times.

 

We first see Zuckerberg in what is now an iconic scene of which I suspect the script will be repeated verbatim by enthusiasts for years to come.  Zuckerberg is at a table with a girl and this appears to be a date.  This is like a mini version of My Dinner with Andre (1981) and it is pivotal to establishing his character.   The scene works brilliantly with the camera work and the sharp editing adding great bat and ball to the dialogue.  Indeed the entire film is something of a celebration of the script and a homage to the talkies over more expressive visual film making,  though that has a flourish later in the film as we shall see. 

Mark Zuckerberg as a person is neither good nor bad but is someone who comes in and out of focus The other characters in this Greek drama are all in Zuckerbergs orbit; Eduardo the business manager is the nearest we get to the films moral centre.  Old money arrives in the shape of the Winklvevoss twins.  Next up is the Svengali figure of Sean Parker (Justin Timeberlake) as the founder of Napster is the polar opposite of  Eduardo.  As Eduardo carries the business model around New York trying to impress advertisers Fanning is on the opposite side as he goes about enticing Angel investors.   Though far from central to the film is Erica Albright played here by Rooney Mara.  The film attempts to force upon her characterization that is possibly not deserved and that is the ‘Rosebud’ character that is the catalyst for the idea of Facebook.  This is a reductive view of how ideas come to be and are ultimately executed they are not so much the result of individual actions but rather the product of networks.  

At the centre of the Social Network is an understated court case that revolves around the question of who had the idea for Facebook in the first place?  Secondly who provided the money to allow the idea of Facebook?  Indeed Zuckerberg himself shared some form with the auteur's of cinema as earlier versions of Facebook had in the footer ‘A Mark Zuckerberg Production’.  The success of Facebook as seen through the eyes of cinema does remind  ‘new media’ of what they share in common with cinema.  Like Facebook the success of a film either financially or artistically or both can lead to court cases that revolve around credits in terms of the original idea or script.  The Deer Hunter provides a comparison with Michael Cimino attempting to take the sole credit for both screenplay and directing hence the  ‘A film by Micheal Cimino’ in the titles. The success of Facebook as seen through the eyes of cinema does remind  ‘new media’ of what they share in common with cinema.

Shawn Parker played brilliantly by Justin Timberlake comes to the film just past the central point but his presence is essential.   Again to allow the film analogy to persist, Fanning is the producer of Facebook and Eduardo is a co producer while Zuckerberg attempts to gain credit as director, writer and co-producer.  This is Facebook the movie. 

In some quarters Mark Zuckerberg is cited as something akin to a ‘genius’ and history might record his contribution alongside other great inventors like Tim Berners Lee.  This might be true but it is precisely the type of  spin generated by Shawn Fanning.  His entrance into the film just beyond the middle point has an electrifying effect.  He plays the character like a hot shot producer, pepped up on cocaine, treating Facebook as a film in need of a good producer.  In one scene we see Zuckerberg now along way from the Harvard cafe that opens the film  ensconced in a night club.  The sounds design is so natural you feel as if you are straining to hear their conversation above the blaring music. 

Another aspect of the film is the nature of how ideas come to life in the first place.  Are ideas born out of individual ‘genius’ or are they more collective in origins?  Does a big bang moment arrive when the idea suddenly crystallizes? We have one such moment in a Harvard dorm where we see the origins of Facebook take place.  The idea of the lone genius is often portrayed in cinema bio films of great thinkers, writers and inventors.  In the main because the film wants to rush away from the boredom of idea creation and straight to the fame and fortune that the idea brings.  The court case in the 'Social Network' a far cry from the drama of the English courtroom and is played out in what looks like an office hired from Regus. The battle is about money but also the idea of Facebook.  Or is it both? In the sense that the idea has now taken on the cloak of intellectual property and is now indistinguishable from money.  

A more interesting theme is the notion of exclusivity that informed Facebook starting as it did amongst America's top universities replete with its own class system regulated by college fraternities. The need to belong and be better connected is important.  Facebook embodies a certain amount of idealism in the sense that it is a poster boy for capitalism combined with the promise that it somehow promotes democracy. The film while only deals with about two years of FB but the money quoted in billions has converted FB's idea to that of a money making machine.  However the film is far from a hatchet job on Mark Zuckerberg and we are I think left with the impression of someone for whom the idea of Facebook is more important than the zillions it could earn him.  He may yet become that truly American phenomenon; the huge philanthropist. 

Ultimately though the film is tinged with sadness. We are whisked along by the speed of Sorkins wordplay but at the end the juggernaut pauses in frame and looks sad. Ultimately the idea cost friendships and very few capitalist business ventures have had unblemished origins many of whom started with idealism but have since parked any notion of that with the PR department. At the foundation idealism takes root but once the value of the idea is pitched in money terms the idea begins to destroy the connections in the group.  In some respects the idea for Facebook was brought about by the group and the importance of Harvard is that it provided the environment for such a group to form.  

Or instead of a group we could term it a network, as ideas in many cases form as a result of your membership or access to a network rather than in isolation.  Facebook’s success broke that network and the film’s narrative structure looks over the wreckage.  The film that Fincher has directed just about keeps up with the speed of Sorkins script.  In one departure from what is in the main interior shots, Fincher is permitted one highly stylised sequence that feels outside the film.  This should not detract at all from what is a winning partnership of Fincher the cinematic visualist par excellence and Sorkin whose script bats and balls between characters.  

Ultimately ‘The Social Network (2010) will stand the test of time because ultimately this is not a film about Facebook but instead about the times we live in today.  Long after Facebook goes into relative decline this film will pop up on television and at repertory cinemas reminding us how one mediocre idea grew to become an essential social utility built on weak connections and a dodgy past.  A fortune was made but to paraphrase Balzac “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”

 

Blog post: Christopher Nolan's film #Inception and the influence of Spellbound. #filmreview #hitchcock

The new film from Christopher Nolan, Inception (2010) takes the mind as its subject. 'Inception' is not about bending the mind but hijacking it instead. The central concept behind the film is in some respects so simple but the possibilities are infinite. Take a mind and plant an idea. Simple? Well yes and no, the technology exists in the future created by Nolan's vision led by Cobb played here by Leonardo De Caprio. We first see him not in a brave futuristic world but instead face down on a beach but theirs one last job. What could it possibly be? to enter the mind of an evil dictator and plant the ideas of Mother Theresa. Well not quite we are to be honest back in traditional science fiction territory and that is the world of the corporations. Saito (Ken Wantanabe) needs a job done on the mind of his rivals son (Robert Fischer Jr) played by Cillian Murphy the son of a corporate big wig. He is set to inherit an energy empire which Saito would like broken up. So in the spirit of many a heist film of yesteryear, Cobb rounds up a gang capable of entering the mind of Maurice Fischer (Peter Postlethwaite)

However two narrative foundations that make Inception so appealing is firstly the manner by which they literally enter the mind of Robert via his dreams and second the way Robert has had his subconscious trained to repel such an Inception of his mind. Whilst films such as Hitchcock's 'Spellbound (1945) showed the viewer what carry on can happen inside the mind during psychoanalysis as the Dali dreamscapes unfold. 'Inception' bears some similarities with Spellbound (1945) in the sense that it has intelligent fun with the visual possibilities that the subconscious state of mind affords. However 'Inception' is more realistic and disciplined but wheels out some awe inspiring visual sequences. Inception has the power to appeal across audiences from those seeking visual escapism or others who wish to read the film on a higher level. You can imagine the fun Zizek would have dissecting 'Inception'

Having set up the concepts that power 'Inception' the film is free to unleash a visual extravaganza as a city literally folds at will. This particular visual sequence is quite arresting but equally you could dismiss it as the kind of visual that accompanies a Canon camera advertisement. However for the most part the visuals are in the service of the film. One particular sequence exemplifies this aspect with a scene that in one way could have come out of a Bond film. We have in our sight lines a vast brutalist architectural building looking like the hideout from a Bond villain. As the henchmen stream out to defend the building which is I think the mind of Robert Fischer Jr, so what we are seeing is the storming of his mind.

The resistance to the idea that Cobb and his associates are trying to plant makes 'Inception' so intriguing. Like The Matrix (1999) which is an influence on 'Inception' you get a world where anything can happen but some ground rules are applied. In the case of 'Inception' the dreamscape accessed offers no protection from pain or death. This is only a dream but one where the characters take risks. The presence of Maria Cotillard playing Mal the wife of Cobb, a wife he may have killed allows the song "Non, je ne regrette rien" to haunt the film as if calling you into or out of a dream. For a visual film you get the music to match with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack which is incidentally one of his best for years. It moves the film along providing one of those rare things in modern cinema a soundtrack that compliments a film. As opposed to rattling along trying to glibly suggest the emotional state of a character.

However despite the visuals and clever concepts behind 'Inception' the film is slightly let down by the narrative. Cobb with a back story that would not be out of place in a film from the fifties; one last job, he's not nice, might have killed his wife and by the way he is on the run. Step forward Saito the benefactor who provides the one last job, succeed and you will have the slate cleaned with the possibility of returning to America to see kids who annoyingly show up in those over lit summer garden scenes. Then round up the gang of Inception experts each with a great talent. As for Saito with all the possibilities of Inception he is type of corporate baddy who wants to plant an idea that would take one pence of the share price of his rival. The characters of which their are many inhabit the space but you do not care for them much. Micheal Caine makes a fleeting appearance but only to flesh out a cardboard cut out professor. Would have been nice if he came along drunk dressed as Dr Frank Bryant from Educating Rita (1983)

Despite my carping 'Inception' is at times visually intoxicating so much so that you can just go with the film and admire. Christopher Nolan has been compared to Stanley Kubrick for his marriage of visual style with intelligent ideas. This is premature but what Nolan does have in common with Kubrick is that he takes the studio, its toys and stack of cash and makes a film that entertains and stimulates the mind. Like The Matrix the film will become subject to repeat viewing as some viewers become obsessed with the concepts behind Christopher Nolan's film.