Matangi/Maya/M.I.A.

Dir: Steve Loveridge

2018

***

Matangi/Maya/M.I.A. isn’t the feature documentary I was expecting. Turns it wasn’t the film M.I.A. was expecting either. The film was in production as early as 2011. Steven Loveridge, long term friend of M.I.A. (real name Maya Arulpragasam), was given tapes and footage by M.I.A. from her personal collection to build the film. In July 2013, Loveridge released a teaser video on YouTube responding to his dissatisfaction with Interscope Records and legal and funding delays associated with the project. The video was pulled from YouTube after a copyright claim was made by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry on behalf of Interscope and Roc Nation, the label representing the singer. Loveridge quit the project, stating he would "rather die" than work on it any further. However, the video attracted the attention of the production company Cinereach, and in November, Loveridge restarted the project and the UK non-profit documentary support organization Britdoc Foundation announced funding. The film was eventually released in September 2018. After the film's premiere, Loveridge said that his intention with the film was to give background and context to M.I.A. as a person, in the current time period where 'media moves so fast'. He had disagreed with media coverage of her being presented as a 'controversial pop star' without an audience understanding her origins. He tried to centre the film more on the backstory of Maya, her upbringing, migration to the United Kingdom and the relationship between her father, his political activism and the civil conflict in Sri Lanka in 2010. This was distinct to the expectations that M.I.A. had for the project, which is that it would become a 'tour documentary’. M.I.A. had not actually seen the film prior to the premiere, suggesting in an interview at the Sundance Film Festival that Loveridge had been absent for the last 4 years, communicating with her sporadically. Loveridge responded and said he had "been drowned in MIA and her story and like my all day every day for the last four years". She remarked in another interview that "Loveridge took all the shows where I look good and tossed it in the bin. Eventually, if you squash all the music together from the film, it makes for about four minutes. I didn’t know that my music wouldn’t really be a part of this. I find that to be a little hard, because that is my life.” She later remarked that she felt Loveridge had "boiled the film down to an essence of what people already know about me" but that she "could still make 20 other films and not crossover with what Steve has made". Loveridge said that his film "wasn't about music", and that it was necessary to keep distance between himself and the artist during the editing process, and avoid the subject of the film influencing their portrayal as any documentary filmmaker would. I can’t help but agree with Loveridge and I’m somewhat surprised that M.I.A. disapproved of the finished article. I thought she came off quite well, even considering how excruciatingly pretentious she can be. I didn’t know the full extent of her history, so while it won’t be news to her, it will be news to many others. I like her music a lot and I understand it but now knowing her history is seems to have far more prevalence to me. I do find her somewhat annoying but I disagree that she is fake or false in any way. She’s authentic, the real deal and I think her activism is admirable and from the heart. She certainly isn’t an industry puppet and those who seem to love knocking her down clearly haven’t taken the time to listen to what she has to say or understand where she is coming from. It is her art school bullshit that annoys most people – I can say that because I also went to art school and find myself spouting the same crap. I’m jealous of her success – not only because she seem to always find herself in the right place at the right time, but also because she had great ideas at a young age. Delusions of grandeur and unwavering confidence can be mistaken for one another and they can often have the same symptoms. There is a scene that sums up a lot of the nonsense surrounding the singer for me and that is when she stuck up her middle finger during the Super Bowl show she did supporting Madonna. The media really went for her – more than they would for any other singer – and you can’t help but think it was because she had challenged them and was of a certain ethnicity. She has been seen as something of a cliché and a contradiction, which she really isn’t. The thing is, there is absolutely nothing clever or revolutionary about ‘flicking the bird’ as they say. Maybe the film should have been just about her music, but somehow that wouldn’t have been enough or indeed worthwhile when you can just watch one of her videos or concert footage whenever. I learned a lot about her, the documentary is subjective but balanced and she retains most of the mystery that has served her well for the best part of the decade. No one is perfect, so it is absurd that we expect perfection from pop stars, actors and celebrities etc. Her music tells you everything you need to know really and love or hate her, she’s authentic, unique and worth checking out as is this insightful film (no matter what she says).

Miss Sloane

Dir: John Madden

2016

****

Jessica Chastain starred in two films that were released a month apart from each other. The most recent of the pair was Molly’s Game, released on 5th January 2017 and the first was Miss Sloane, released on 9th December 2016. Both made losses at the box office but both are excellent dramas with Chastain giving two phenomenal performances. I can only conclude that people like to watch blockbusters in December and are too brassic to go to the cinema in January. I hope that I’m right and people didn’t go to see them because they were deemed too highbrow or boring but I do wonder about current audiences. That said, my local cinema didn’t show it even though it shows kid’s Christmas films well into March. I really hope the poor attendance wasn’t because everyone is a gun nut. The state of things. I digress. I didn’t actually go and see the film because it was directed by John Madden because until now I haven’t been much of a fan of his work. This is by far the most compelling film of his career so far. Miss Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is a cutthroat lobbyist who, in the first scene, has been called to appear at a congressional hearing led by Senator Ronald Sperling (John Lithgow) to answer questions about possible violations of Senate ethics rules during her tenure at Washington D.C. lobbying firm Cole Kravitz & Waterman. Rewind three months earlier and we see Sloane's firm is approached by gun manufacturing representative Bill Sanford (Chuck Shamata) to lead the opposition to the proposed Heaton-Harris bill that would expand background checks on gun purchases, specifically by targeting female voters. Sloane ridicules Sanford's idea and is later approached by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong), the head of rival lobbying firm Peterson Wyatt, to instead lead the effort in support of the bill. Sloane agrees and takes most of her staff along with her, though her assistant Jane Molloy (Alison Pill) refuses to leave. At Peterson Wyatt, Sloane selects Esme Manucharian (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) to conduct the majority of the firm's media appearances, and they begin to make significant progress in garnering votes for the bill. Sloane confronts Esme with knowledge of her background as having witnessed a school shooting. Even though Esme does not want to disclose the information, Sloane reveals Esme's secret during a live television debate. Later, Esme is held up at gunpoint while leaving her office, but her attacker is shot dead by another civilian who is legally carrying a gun. Gun rights supporters capitalize on this event, which causes the Heaton-Harris bill to lose support in the Senate which I personally found rather odd. Surely the man who held up Esme should have been better checked, making a stronger case for the Heaton-Harris bill? It bothered me for a few minutes until I realised that actually, the world we live in is this stupid, so it is actually closer to the truth than I had first thought. The narrative returns to the congressional hearing. Senator Sperling produces a form requesting approval of overseas travel for a senator. It was filed by a non-profit organization but completed in Sloane's handwriting, indicating she illegally played a role in arranging the travel. Sloane also swears under oath that she has never practiced illegal wiretapping. In her final statement at the hearing, Sloane admits she anticipated the opposition might attack her personally if Peterson Wyatt made too much progress with the Heaton-Harris bill. She reveals that she had someone (Jane Molley) secretly working for her the entire time and had Senator Sperling surveilled and she had him recorded in his parked car accepting bribes in from Cole Kravitz & Waterman boss George Dupont (Sam Waterston). Ten months later, Sloane is visited by her lawyer in prison, and it is revealed the Heaton-Harris bill passed but at the cost of her career. The film ends with Sloane being released from prison. I do like a good political thriller and Miss Sloane is a good political thriller. It is safe to say though that the film rests on Jessica Chastain’s stand out performance. Steven Spielberg was said to be interested in the script – that was at one point on the infamous black list – but he wouldn’t have been available to make it for another few years. It’s a shame, because with his gravitas it might have been the box office smash it should have been. I feel it raises a very important issue, one that everyone should have taken notice of, but now seems lost in the distant memory of 2016.

Bad Times at the El Royale

Dir: Drew Goddard

2018

****

My anticipation for Bad Times at the El Royale was pretty high given how much I loved Drew Goddard’s 2011 debut The Cabin in the Woods so maybe I had always set myself up for a fail, but as much as I liked it, I can’t help but think there was something missing. In many respects I saw The Cabin in the Woods as the horror movie to end all horror movies – I’m glad it wasn’t – but it took so many of the horror sub-genres and added a brilliant extra element to them that I doubt will ever be beaten. I would say that Bad Times at the El Royale was the 90s film to end all 90s films, while also being the 60s film to end all 60s films – or at least, a contemporary film exploring the late 60s. I say that because I firmly believe that if it had been made in the 90s it would be regarded as a genuine classic by now. There is a Quentin Tarantino feel about the whole thing and it also reminded me of films such as Way of the Gun, U Turn, L.A. Confidential and many other unsung neo-noir 90s thrillers. Dare I say it, but maybe its twenty years too late. I was also reminded of the 00s television show Lost in that the hotel seems to be a an allegory for Limbo, a place between Heaven and Hell where lost souls travel awaiting judgement. The Californian side could be seen as hell while Nevada could be considered Heaven – although most of the bad stuff happens in Nevada. Set in 1969, and separated into chapters, the film follows Catholic priest Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), singer Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo), salesman Laramie Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm), and hippie Emily Summerspring (Dakota Johnson) as they arrive at the El Royale, a hotel that sits right on the boarder between California and Nevada. The hotel's only employee is Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman), a rather absent young man left to run the hotel by himself. As the film progresses each guest is seen to be something other than what they first appear to be. Upon checking into the honeymoon suite, Sullivan is shown to be an FBI agent named Dwight Broadbeck sent to remove illegal surveillance equipment of unknown origin in one of the rooms. He discovers that, in addition to his own agency’s listening devices, the room has even more devices than those planted by the FBI, apparently from an unknown source. In addition, he discovers a passageway leading into a corridor looking onto two-way mirrors in each of the hotel's rooms, as well as a 16mm camera setup. When he mistakenly witnesses an apparent kidnapping in progress in Emily's room; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover instructs him not to interfere but to sabotage the guests' vehicles to prevent any of them from escaping. Meanwhile, Flynn invites Sweet to join him for dinner. When she sees him spiking her drink she knocks him unconscious with a bottle of wine and makes her escape. Miles finds Flynn and reveals to him the secret passageway, afterwards explaining that "management" has instructed him to film the guests and send the footage to them. However, he chose to hold back one particularly incriminating film reel of a recently deceased public figure. Against orders, Broadbeck attempts to rescue Emily's hostage, who is revealed to be her younger sister, Rose. Emily opens fire on Broadbeck, killing him and accidentally injuring Miles who was watching from behind the mirror. An overwhelmed Sweet attempts to escape in her car after witnessing the murder, but Flynn arrives. He reveals that he is really a criminal named Donald O'Kelly, who was imprisoned after a botched robbery ten years earlier. Recently freed on parole, O'Kelly has returned to the El Royale in priest garb to retrieve the money which his brother Felix had hidden there before being killed in a double cross after the robbery. But due to failing memory, O'Kelly can't recall which room held the cash. He had attempted to drug Sweet to gain access to her room, believing the cash to be buried there. In the end, the two agree to split the cash among themselves. In the lobby, Emily and Rose, having discovered the corridor, interrogate Miles about the surveillance operation. It is revealed that Emily has forcibly removed her sister from a cult led by Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth), a sadistic but charismatic figure responsible for a string of murders in Malibu. However, Rose reveals that she has already called Billy about their location. As O'Kelly and Sweet attempt to leave with the money, Lee and his cultists arrive and hold them hostage along with Emily and Miles. While terrorizing the group, Lee learns of the money and the film, which he realizes is worth much more than the money. In a sadistic game of roulette, Lee kills Emily. Using a brief power outage to his advantage, O'Kelly attacks Lee as the hotel lounge catches fire. During the chaos, Miles reveals that he served as a U.S military sniper in Vietnam who killed 123 people. At Sweet's insistence, he picks up a gun and kills Lee and the other cultists. A distraught Rose stabs Miles, but is shot by O'Kelly. Before Miles dies, Sweet tells O'Kelly to absolve him of his guilt over his actions in Vietnam, which he does. O'Kelly and Sweet retrieve the money and Sweet tosses the film into the fire before the pair flee the hotel. The film flashes forward in time, where Sweet performs at a show in Reno for a small crowd. Sweet smiles as she recognizes O'Kelly, who has arrived to proudly watch her sing. It’s an all singing, all dancing thriller with a great ensemble cast and unpredictable story. Each chapter is its own little story but they are edited together rather well, never becoming samey or predictable. The opening scene is beautifully composed and the sets are lavish and full of decadence. Set in 1969, the film manages to incorporate all the big issues of the era, such as the Vietnam war, Political scandal, the Cold War, cultism – Billy Lee clearly influenced by Charles Manson, and of course the music, which acts as the film’s glue. The only problem I had with the film was its lack of suspense. Apart from a couple of shock scenes I thought the story was fairly predictable and even the shock scenes could be said to have been predictable. I liked the flashback scenes featuring the Vietnam war, an armored car robbery, a cult meeting and an indecent proposal (featuring the brilliant Xavier Dolan) and I thought the editing was great but the ending was a little flat and lacking the climax that the first half of the film promised. What I did like about it though was its quirkiness. It did rely a little too heavily on gimmick but there was something rather odd about it that really appealed. It’s not at all the sort of film I expected after The Cabin in the Woods but I liked it and felt drawn into the story throughout. I think a sharper script and a few more twists would have improved it but as it is I liked it, its my kind of odd.

Velvet Buzzsaw

Dir: Dan Gilroy

2019

****

While 2016’s Nocturnal Animals was a horror of sorts set in the art world, I’m not sure a pure fantasy horror has actually ever had an art theme to it. Velvet Buzzsaw is a strange mix of Robert Altman and Final Destination that explores the soul of creativity. Dan Gilroy conceived the project after Superman Lives, a film which he had a hand in developing, was abruptly cancelled by Warner Bros. just weeks before filming was set to start. It’s a moment that changed the direction of Gilroy’s career and how he approached film making. "I remember being just devastated," Gilroy said. "I'd worked for a year and a half. This was going to be a massive film for me. I was so excited. So I drove down to Santa Monica, and I sat on the beach, and I was just trying to process this year and a half, and I thought, 'Wow, I could have written all of those words on the beach in the sand, and the waves could have just washed them away.' That's pretty much the relevance of what I just went through." However, Gilroy began to realize that the time wasn't wasted as he grew as a writer from it and led him to start working on projects that mattered to him, not just what he was hired for. It's that decision that ultimately led him to Velvet Buzzsaw and the final scene of the film specifically. When asked what he wanted audiences to take away from the film, Gilroy said "I hope people look at art in a slightly different way. Any time you listen to a piece of music or look at a sculpture or a painting or a film, you realize the artists behind that have invested what I believe to be their creative soul into the work. To me, that's a bit of a sacred thing and I think we've lost that a little bit. I would love it if we could return to that." Gilroy was struck by the idea for Velvet Buzzsaw after having visited the Dia contemporary-art gallery in Beacon, New York and hours after came up with a rough plot. " I was wandering around this huge, empty warehouse with all this rather disturbing contemporary art. And I wound up in the basement in a video installation with, like, dentist chairs and rats running around. And I just thought, 'Man, this would be a great place for a horror movie.' The idea that artists invest their souls in their work and it's more than a commodity - that has always interested me. I suddenly saw a way of incorporating it all, to explore how, when art and commerce are dangerously out of balance, bad things can happen. It clicked very quickly." It is quite effective too and he clearly did his research. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a cliched art critic Morf Vandewalt and we follow him to an art exhibition alongside his friend and agent Josephina (Zawe Ashton) who works for tough art gallery owner Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) - formerly a member of the rock band Velvet Buzzsaw. Morf is unfulfilled in his own love life with his boyfriend Ed, and so starts a sexual relationship with Josephina. Returning back to Los Angeles, Josephina finds a dead man called Vetril Dease in her apartment block and, discovering that he was an artist, enters his home to discover a myriad of paintings. Josephina steals the paintings to show to Morf and Rhodora who become fascinated with Dease and see an opportunity to sell the pieces to the public. Josephina begins exhibiting the artwork at the request of Rhodora. Morf's art curator friend Gretchen (Toni Collette) and a former abstract artist for the Haze Gallery, Piers (John Malkovich), become equally enamored with Dease's work. The pieces are shown in a successful public display in which industry professionals intend to purchase them. Under orders from Rhodora to ensure the rarity of the paintings, gallery worker Bryson (Billy Magnussen) transports half of the paintings to storage. While transporting them, out of curiosity, he opens a crate and decides to keep one of the artworks for himself. En route, he accidentally crashes his car when lit cigarette ash disposed on a painting causes severe burns. Retreating to a gas station, Bryson is attacked by a painting of monkeys fixing a car and goes missing, as well as the artworks. Morf begins researching Dease, discovering that he suffered from a troubled and abusive childhood that resulted in the murder of his father and his growing mental illness that he portrayed in the paintings. Jon Dondon (Tom Sturridge), an opposing art gallery owner, attempts to tell Dease's story to the press but is soon murdered when he becomes trapped in an artwork and hanged by his scarf. Rhodora's former assistant Coco (Natalia Dyer), who was also searching for a personal file on Dease kept by her boss, discovers Jon's body the next morning. After Jon's funeral, Morf notices a hand in a Dease painting suddenly move, causing him to be overwhelmed. One by one each character begins to believe that the works are cursed and that Dease himself succumbed to his own demise when he tried to burn his own paintings. Analysis of the paintings reveals that many of them contain traces of skin and human tissue within them and the atmosphere of the film gets very eerie indeed. There is quite a lot of symbolism within the film, some of which could be overlooked by people unfamiliar with certain art movements but it is clear that Gilroy is making a statement about people profiting from other people’s work. Indeed, the only people to survive are the artists inspired by the pieces, rather than obsessed by their value. It is a critique on critique in many respects, that is, a sort of revenge by an artist. It’s not sour grapes either but Gilroy is exercising a few demons, which is always an interesting thing for the audience to see. I like how Gilroy has worn his heart on his sleeve and I like how he’s gone about it. There are many tributes within the film too which are clear and a nice touch, making the film even more personal. Some of the deaths are better than others, with some of them poor and other amazing, but all are symbolic in some way. The characters are all a bit cliché and all of them are floored. Our critic is hypercritical, the agent is talentless, the gallery owner is a sell-out and everyone wants credit of other people’s success. It is a culling of creative vampires and the age old tale of obsession leading to demise. It’s different and it’s odd. I really liked it and I’d like to see more horror films set in the art world now.

Stan & Ollie

Dir: Jon S. Baird

2019

*****

When making a biographical film about very well known and much loved legends, you have to get certain components right, otherwise there isn’t any point in making it. You need to get era right, you need to explore key historical events and while it is okay to leave out certain unimportant truths, you should never make anything up. If a story is worth telling, it is worth tell correctly. Lastly, you have to be true to the people you are portraying. Jon S. Baird’s Stan & Ollie (written by Jeff Pope) excels in all of the above. The sets are divined and the 1950s is captured beautifully. The life and career of Laurel and Hardy is so vast, it would be impossible to cram it into one film and do either of them justice. Instead, Stan & Ollie is a personal look at the relationship between the two men during their final tour. It is poignant and somewhat melancholy at times but a joy from beginning to end. It was quite a big tour of the UK and Ireland so not everything is covered in film but a lot of it is mentioned or shown in stills. The conversations are obviously written but the relationship is based on several first-hand accounts and is as correct as it could be. The comedy skits added into everyday life are based on truth as the pair would often put on little performances for small crowds and whenever there was a camera pointed at them. There was always an opportunity to make people laugh, not for self promotion but because it is what they enjoyed doing. Baird’s biopic picks this up wonderfully while acknowledging that the pair did the tour because they really needed the money. It explores the tension between the pair years after Ollie worked with another partner when Stan’s contract was up at the studio, something that Stan took very hard, even though Ollie, under contract, had very little choice over. More importantly, despite how badly the studios treated them, the film explores the truth love and affection the pair had for one another. The story begins in 1937 with a beautiful long take as the pair walk through the studio back lot to the set of Way Out West. They pass various actors in various costume and have a witty line to say about each as they pass. When on set they are met by Hal Roach, the pair’s famous producer, and he and Stan quarrel about direction. Ollie, enjoying the pinnacle of success, is enjoying the here and now. The pair begin the film with their famous little dance and by way of Stan signing with Fox and Ollie making a film with him (in the ‘elephant picture’), we fast forward to 1953 where we join the comedy duo as they embark on a grueling music hall tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland while struggling to get another film made - a comedic adaptation of Robin Hood where the poor steal from the poor, thus cutting out the middleman. However, poor pre-publicity in Britain managed by the producer Bernard Delfont (brother of Lew Grade) means the tour begins in almost empty back street theaters with Delfont seeming more interested in his up and coming star Norman Wisdom. Belatedly, Delfont organises some public appearances, and word of their visit to Britain spreads, resulting in them filling much larger prestigious venues. During the tour, the pair, driven by Stan, continue to write and develop gags for the film. There is, however, an ominous silence from its London-based producer. Once the tour arrives in London, Stan pays a visit to the film's producer himself and discovers there is insufficient funding and the project has been cancelled. He can't bring himself to tell Ollie, and their script development continues. Through much of their tour audiences either assume the pair are played by other people or have long forgotten about them but bit by bit they soon win bigger audiences. They are soon joined by their respective wives, Ida and Lucille (played wonderfully by Nina Arianda and Shirley Henderson), at London's Savoy Hotel before they are to perform at a sold out two-week residency at the nearby Lyceum Theatre. After the opening night at the Lyceum, a party is held to honour them. At the party tensions begin to show between the two wives leading Delfont to remark that he's got two double acts for the price of one. As the night progresses, however, Stan's feelings of Ollie's betrayal come to the surface after his wife brings up the "elephant movie", resulting in the two having a public argument over the movie contract fiasco that split them up. As Stan unloads his pent-up resentment for what he considers to be a betrayal of their friendship and even accuses Ollie of being lazy, Ollie actually unloads his own pent-up feelings towards Stan, claiming that the two weren't really friends, only being together because Hal Roach studios had paired them up and that Stan never loved him as a friend but only loved Laurel and Hardy. As a result of the argument Ollie leaves the party with his wife, who had also had an argument with Stan's wife. Despite their friendship having taken a blow, they press on with their public appearances, which include judging a beauty contest in the seaside resort of Worthing, However, just when they are about to announce the winner, Ollie collapses from a heart attack and is forced into bed rest. When informing Delfont two days later that it's unlikely Ollie will get better in time to continue the tour, Delfont suggests having another well-known English comic step in Ollie's place. When visiting Ollie in his room, Stan is told by Ollie that he intends to retire immediately, explaining that a doctor had warned him that he must never go onstage again as the strain could be fatal, and he and his wife will be leaving for America as soon as possible. Getting into bed with him to warm Ollie up, Stan asks if Ollie meant what he said at the party. Ollie admits he didn't, and when asked the same by Ollie, Stan admits he didn't mean what he had said as well. The two share a silent moment together. On the night of the next show, Stan finds it impossible to work with the English comic that Delfont has set up for him as a substitute so that the tour can continue, simply because he isn't Ollie, and as such, the performance is canceled, much to Delfont's dismay. Ollie decides he can't spend the rest of his life idle in bed and decides that he will perform that night and will play the Irish dates against doctor’s orders. While sailing to Ireland to continue the tour Stan finally confesses he has deceived Ollie about the prospects of the future film even while they continued to work on it, Stan believes maybe no one wants to see a Laurel and Hardy movie anymore. Ollie confesses in turn that he had read that from Stan's demeanor and already knew. He asks why they had kept working on the script if Ollie had known the truth all along. Ollie confesses that's all they could do. Upon arriving in Ireland, the duo are welcomed by a large crowd of fans, both young and old, with the local church bells playing their theme tune. As the film ends, it is revealed in a written epilogue that the tour was the last time they ever worked together. Ollie's health didn't improve and deteriorated after the tour, leading to his death in 1957, and Stan, devastated by his friend's death, refused to work without his partner and effectively retired, dying eight years later in 1965. Even though his friend was gone, Stan continued to write sketches for Laurel and Hardy in the last eight years of his life. Hearing Stan admit to his wife that he loves Ollie and see the pair physically recognise and state their fondness for each other in the film is a bit of cinema magic. It may not have happened that way but it is all true. However, even with everything in place as perfect as it was, getting the characters right was always going to be key and I have to say Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly couldn’t have been better. Their performances were stunning, to the point that you really could believe that you were watching the real Laurel and Hardy. It’s a brilliant film but the performances are absolutely stunning. The prosthetics are one thing, but the mannerisms and the voice work is second to none, making Stan & Ollie one of the most authentic looking biopic ever made. I loved it from beginning to end.

A Prayer Before Dawn

Dir: Jean-Stéphane Sauvaire

2018

*****

Jean-Stéphane Sauvaire’s 2018 adaption of Billy Moore’s harrowing biography is the year’s most overlooked film, featuring the year’s most overlooked performance. A Prayer Before Dawn tells the true story of Moore who was a British national living in Thailand. After years of drugs, crime and many years in prison, Moore got clean thanks to a drug rehabilitation scheme run by the last UK prison he was in. Once released he promised himself a better life and decided to move to Thailand where his money would go further and he could enjoy a good life away from ghosts left behind in the UK. He taught English for a time and found work as a boxer and a stuntman. He was Sylvester Stallone’s stunt double in 2008’s Rambo, the fourth Rambo film that was set in Burma but filmed in Thailand. Unfortunately old habits die hard and Moore found himself in the wrong crowd and developed another drug habit. While fighting in illegal underground boxing matches he was hooked on Yaba – a highly addictive mix of methamphetamine plus caffeine. He was arrested in his apartment when several stolen mobile phones and sim cards were discovered there and he was given a three year sentence. Over the first two years he was transferred to several different prisons but in the film we only see one. Moore’s previous life isn’t explored at all and we are never told why he is arrested. Right from the beginning, screenwriters Jonathan Hirschbein and Nick Saltrese choose to provide as little exposition as possible. We learn virtually nothing about Moore (Joe Cole), before he’s arrested and trown into prison. We’re given no information whatsoever, no narration and no opportunity for Moore to explain. In all the other ‘locked up abroad’ prison dramas that I can think of, our protagonist generally has another inmate to confide his troubles to but here he is on his own, the solitary white-skinned westerner in a prison full of dark-skined and heavily tattooed criminals who don’t like forgeners. Within hours of arriving at the prison, Moore witnesses rape and suiside and spends his first night next to a courpse. The other prisoners shout and jostle him but neither he nor the audience know what they saying. I think the lack of subtitles here are very important as we feel Moore’s isolation and the fear that comes with it. Sure, Moore is tough but he is way outnumbered. Moore manages to keep his drug habit going, scoring free hits from some of the prisoners who assume he will pay them back and who are happy to open channels believing that he is a rich forgener who will soon have plenty of money sent to him by family. The truth was though that Moore hadn’t told anyone he was in a Thai prison and there was no money. A certain guard knew of his addiction and would supply yaba for a short while to build up a dependency and then ask him to perform tasks for him. He asks that Moore beat up the Muslim in-mates for him, suggesting that they are not real Muslims for committing crime (the guard is Muslim). Moore beats up two Muslim men after scoring but nearly beats them to death. Once sober, he is racked with guilt and realises that he needs to sort himself out if he is ever going to survive his time there. The first half of the movie is a brutal fish out of water story, but second half however gives a glimmer of hope as we follow Moore’s discovery of a prison boxing team. Suddenly he sees a way through the tough prison life and something he can focus on. Boxing was Moore’s way of disciplining himself and it would be again. At first the other boxes don’t respect him but when they see just how passionate he is they get behind him. The film is half prison drama and half boxing picture and similar to films that have come before covering both subjects but A Prayer Before Dawn is somehow different. The camera stays close to the action when focusing on Moore’s pain and then pans out to show his isolation. The score is more of a melodic dirge, rather than a rousing piece of classic music. Nothing is glorified and you can almost smell the squalor and deprivation. It’s not a blow-by-blow adaption of Moore’s book but it covers all the truths, just in a different order and missing out his history entirely. It’s a raw and powerful drama and quite brutal at times. There is no romanticism about Moore’s time in the prison, his drug taking or in being a victim. There isn’t even a big release/prison break moment to enjoy, only the fact that he’s got through one challenge and now on to the next. Not that the film isn’t rewarding – it is – as it is refreshing. I thought Joe Cole was exceptional in the lead role, giving the character a subdued and very uncharismatic persona. It is clear that he went head first into the role, giving it everything he had and producing a remarkably realistic portrayal of a man alone trapped in hell. His performance needed to be raw and robotic and not theatrical or methodical and he did it perfectly. His performance wasn’t the sort that gets awards which is ridiculous because his was by far one of the best performances of the year – and the past few years in truth. Jean-Stéphane Sauvaire’s direction is superb and in using authentic locations and ex-inmates, the film is eerily real and brutally honest. This is  a film that deserves far more acknowledgment than it has so far received.

Bros: After the Screaming Stops

Dir: Joe Pearlman, David Soutar

2018

*****

I’m not going to lie, as a young boy growing up in London during the 1980s I listened to Bros and I bought their album. I remember clearly going into Woolworth one Saturday with some birthday money thinking that I should probably start listening to music. I didn’t know anything about music other than my mum liked Boney M and my dad listened to Pink Floyd. I bought New Kids on the Block, Carter USM, Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds, Michael Jackson’s Bad and Push by Bros. I listened to all five albums in a loop and I knew every lyric in no time. It became uncool to like New Kids on the Block and Bros pretty quickly and still to this day when people ask what my first album was I say either Carter USM or Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds. Carter USM remain one of my favorite bands of all time but I have little interest in the others. I’m not sure I could get through a whole album now of any of them, or at least that what I thought before watching 2018’s incredible music documentary Bros: After the Screaming Stops. There is so much to love about this film but the first thing that struck me was just how good the music has aged. I always used to look back at it as ‘boy band’ music but actually it is quality pop and should come under the banner of ‘80s classics’. Their fame was short lived but the flame burned bright for those few years. I remember seeing the crowds of girls who would hand around outside their house 24 hours a day, I believe they were called Brossettes and they all tied Grolsch bottle caps to their shoes. It’s weird to look back and realise that they were only a band for such a short while. I knew Luke Goss had an acting career but I wasn’t sure what had happened to Matt and indeed Craig. The documentary totally ignores the fact that poor old Craig even existed but it’s okay though, he has done very well for himself in the music management game, this film is about the brothers - as the band was. Back in the day most people – including the hardcore fans – probably had no idea why the band split because all we had to rely on were silly teen music magazines (Look In) and the British tabloids (toilet paper). I thought Craig was sacked for being boring of example, but after a bit of research he actually left because he was suffering from ME and couldn’t walk for 6 months. There was a television interview and everything but everyone I know thought he was booted. I didn’t know that it was Luke who called it a day after becoming tired of living in his brother’s shadow (as he saw it) and I was even more surprised to learn that it was actually him that played the drums live. Most of this info is easy to find and actually the documentary isn’t about any of that, it is about the reunion gigs that the two brothers organised in 2017 – a whole twenty-eight years after their last show. Matt has been selling out regular Las Vegas shows for years and Luke has been working hard in his acting career, so both brothers are used to still performing. Performing together as Bros though seems to be their biggest challenge to date. I’d heard that the documentary was funny in a Spinal Tap sort of way but I had no idea just how emotional it was. It is first and foremost one the funniest films I have ever seen, it isn’t intentional but the director and producers must have realised they’d struck gold as soon as they got started. The Goss twins are not idiots though, they say funny things but they’re about as likable as any two people could ever be. The truth is that they’ve come through the very worst that stardom and celebrity can throw at you. They were always a band, first and foremost, in it for the music before anything else. They had success at such an early age, to go from that to being hated in such a short space of time is horrible. They were ripped to pieces by the media for no real reason other than the British press is scum. It made them leave their beloved London, clearly one of the toughest times of their lives. They lost their only sister in a car accident during the height of their success but carried on knowing how much was invested in them. They were used and disposed of, the age old story of young fame. I have loads of sympathy for them and they seem to have got themselves out of a painful time but the scars are still very clear to see. The title ‘After the screaming stops’ comes from an interview with the late Terry Wogan who was the UK’s most popular talk show host during the late 80s. He was supportive of the group but asked them back in 1989 what they think they’ll do once it is all over - ‘After the screaming stops’. The footage shows two young men unsure of the answer and fast forwards to 2018 where they speak about how tough it has been. It’s quite powerful. Some of the quotes are amazing, modern classics (including such lines as: ““The letters H.O.M.E. are so important because they personify the word home.”; “I made a conscious decision because of Stevie Wonder not to be superstitious.”; “If there was ever 15 one way streets and one solitary two way street where me and my brother got to meet in the middle – you helped [us] find that one street. We’ve met in the middle. Two worlds definitely collided. When two worlds collide, two things happen: Destruction or the genesis of new beginnings, and you created water on a new planet, mate.”), but there is so much heart and raw emotion here that it is impossible not to love the brothers. It’s been a while – or maybe even never – that I’ve laughed hard and also nearly cried with sadness during a documentary. I never would have thought it would be a Bros documentary that would be the one to manage it. I loved every second of it.