The Big Sick

Dir: Michael Showalter

2017

****

If I was a Pakistani actor living in America I would run a mile away from any film that saw my character explore my cultural roots and enter into a doomed relationship due to my parent’s opinion on arranged marriage. It’s about as cliché as it gets and I personally want more from actors of various backgrounds. I want to learn more of other cultures but certain tales have been told to death – there has to be something more, and that being the case, I openly admit I totally overlooked The Big Sick. Not only does it buck the trend in many respects, it is also based on a true story and is written by the people the actors portray – Kumail Nanjiani actually playing himself. He and now wife Emily V. Gordon met in the early 00s and their cultural differences weren’t really a problem until Nanjiani became apprehensive about her meeting his family, however, life change dramatically for the pair when Emily suddenly fell ill with a mystery illness. She was placed in an induced coma for some time until she was eventually diagnosed with adult-onset Still’s disease, a serious illness that is so rare it often takes time to diagnose but is easily treated. During Emily’s coma, Kumail is forced to spend time with her parents and to also consider his relationship with regards to his families beliefs. Much of the script is fictional but most of the story is based on real-life events. It’s slightly odd that Kumail plays himself and Emily is played by someone else (Zoe Kazan) but the onscreen chemistry is believable and it works. Many cliches are dealt with early on, which is a great relief, with Kumail later commenting on how his family should be portrayed by bemoaning that so many Muslim characters are frequently depicted as overly serious. He makes a point of showing his family with the jokey and humorous traits they have in real life, avoiding the untrue stereotype, breaking down assumption and dispelling preconception. I think the fact that producer Judd Apatow is involved made me expect a different film altogether, and while Kumail is a stand up comic and Holly Hunter and Ray Romano’s characters are partly down to him, it is a very different film to his other works. The term ‘interracial relationship’ seems archaic to me after living in the big city all my life and having ex-girlfriends of different colours and creeds, but actually people do behave towards you when you are involved with someone from a different culture, there are challenges, and these always come from the older generation. In my experience they’ve had to lump it, and soon they’ve learnt to except. This will be a thing of the past in the near future, I’m sure of it, and maybe The Big Sick is playing a part in putting the subject to bed once and for all. However, all that aside, this is a really heartwarming film that I absolutely adored. I almost wanted more of it to be true, but the core message is sound and the love is real. Nanjiani and Kazan are great together – it must have been weird for both of them having the real Emily watching from behind the camera – but it’s clearly the result everyone wanted. The structure of the story is also quite clever, swapping between stand-up and real life is no new thing, but it doesn’t always work, Nanjiani pulls if off brilliantly. The scenes between Kumail and his brother are a highlight and the backstage banter between comics works well. For me though, it is the performances from Holly Hunter and Ray Romano that really lift the film and what is even more great, is that they almost come from nowhere. Emily’s parents could have been just as stereotypical as Kumail’s, but thankfully they’re anything but – although nothing like her parents in real life. The scenario is odd, it’s obviously something that happened in real life, quite devastating in places, but thoroughly romantic. However, it is the brilliant performances and character chemistry that makes The Big Sick such a joy to watch.

The Cloverfield Paradox

Dir: Julius Onah

2018

***

There are various different ways of looking at The Cloverfield Paradox. Firstly, the original Cloverfield came out in 2008 and was celebrated for it’s clever marketing. It wasn’t a remarkable film – a found-footage contemporary monster movie – but it was entertaining all the same. No one expected a sequel, let alone a series and it is clear that was never the intention. However, they had a name and J.J. Abrams clearly wanted a franchise of his own (after messing with just about everyone else’s). 2016’s 10 Cloverfield Lane came from out of nowhere – again, a clever marketing ploy – and it was well received. It conjured up even more questions about the first film and explained the ‘universe’ rather cleverly. It was a totally different style of film but it worked. It was then announced that more ‘Cloverfield’ films would be released, each showing a unique viewpoint of the event that was unfolding and each answering previous questions, as well as asking its own. The best possible kind of movie expansion in my mind, many franchises have their own ‘universes’ but Cloverfield looked like it was on to something uniquely special. The Cloverfield Paradox came out of nowhere, even more so than 10 Cloverfield Lane, Bad Robot Productions waiting until Super Bowl LII to announce its release – which was to be just two hours later on streaming channel Netflix. A great surprise for everyone with a Netflix account but maybe a disappointment for everyone who had enjoyed the two previous films and were looking forward to seeing it, what ever it was going to be, on the big screen. Clever marketing. Or was it? Bad Robot bought the script for 10 Cloverfield Lane when it was just a spec script called The Cellar. It had nothing to do with Cloverfield but was re-written so that it would connect to the first film. A lucky day for the scriptwriters in many respects but also a back-handed compliment in that it was if being told that their script was good but would never go anywhere as it was. Harsh but probably accurate. I think the same could be said for The Cloverfield Paradox. I find it somewhat outrageous though that it’s writer, Oren Uziel, had no idea that his idea, originally called God Particle, had been bought, rewritten and absorbed into the Cloverfield franchise until production was well underway. You have to expect it when writing a spec script but still, it’s got to hurt a little. The truth is though, The Cloverfield Paradox would have struggled at the box office. Spaceship horrors are a tough sell, I personally love them but 2017’s Life – a brilliant recent addition to the genre, limped at the box office and Ridley Scott is pretty much killing off everyone else’s chances by butchering his own Alien franchise. People are looking to the small screen for their sci-fi pleasure, so, I’m sad to say, Netflix was a good move on all accounts. Apparently the production costs had risen anyway, the film was filmed back in 2016 and there have clearly been problems. The Super Bowl announcement might seem a clever marketing ploy but the truth is it screams of a last minute damage control. I like watching my films on the big screen but I’ll be honest, finding out about this film in the morning and being able to watch it in the comfort of my own home that very night was pretty sweet and as much as I enjoyed it, I would have felt a little cheated if I’d paid to see it in the cinema. It’s better than Alien: Covenant but I preferred Life. Cloverfield isn’t a franchise I’m that interested in really if I’m being honest, I’m curious but fairly ambivalent towards it. I do admire what they’re doing in some respects, as cheap as it is, it is full of interesting possibilities. First saw a monster in New York, second was a creepy underground bunker scenario and third is in space. The Cloverfield Paradox finally gives us some answers as to what has been going on, these are not particularly original answers, but they’re answers all the same. The crew of the science space ship/space station ‘Shepard’ are circling the Earth and using a particle accelerator in order to solve the planet’s energy crisis. After two years of failure, they finally get the accelerator working properly but things go very wrong after the initial start. After thinking that they may have mistakenly destroyed the earth, they soon realise that they’ve accidentally jumped to an alternative dimension. We are told early on in the film in a news clip featuring Gotham regular Donal Logue as a science commentator, that this kind of untested particle acceleration could lead to nightmarish scenarios but the clip is switched off by a member of the crew – much to their downfall. You can’t help but think of films such as 2017’s Life, Event Horizon and The Mist. There is also a little bit of David Cronenberg in there, as well as a few scenes H.R. Giger could have designed. I also saw a lot of H.P. Lovecraft in some of the more surreal happenings, as well as Sam Raimi and The Addams Family. The story barely works as part of the Cloverfield story, it certainly wouldn’t have stood alone, but it does have its positives. Firstly, it’s got a fantastic cast, including Gugu Mbatha-Raw, David Oyelowo, Zhang Ziyi, Daniel Bruhl, Aksel Hennie, John Ortiz and Chris O’Dowd (plus voice cameos from Simon Pegg and Greg Grunberg – presumably to give the film a few extra nerd credentials). Each actor does a fine job and the story is consistently exciting, the only big downfall are the pointless scenes set on earth. It’s nothing special within the genre but it’s very easy to watch. Chris O’Dowd actually keeps the film going with a welcome injection of humour and some of the strange scenarios that the alternative reality throws up are great. I don’t think it makes the most of the possibilities the scenario could lead to, but for a TV movie its popcorn-tastic. I’m not really interested in a Cloverfield television series, so I’m quite glad they’re moving in this direction. I’m not disappointed because I had absolutely no expectations, to be honest, the more ridiculous the story gets the happier I’ll probably be. Think Twilight Zone rather than Black Mirror and you shouldn't be too disappointed.

Into the Inferno

Dir: Werner Herzog

2016

*****

Werner Herzog’s fascination with Volcanoes continues in, what I think, is his best film on the subject so far. Back in 1977, Herzog and a small team went to Guadeloupe just as the locals were evacuating, to try to find an elusive man who had been said to have stayed put in defiance of the imminent eruption. They found him and he sang angrily at them until they went away. Herzog is of course fascinated by the volcanoes themselves, the force behind them and their great importance, but also on the effect they have on the people who live beside them and worship them. Indeed, as he puts it himself, “there is no single one that is not connected to a belief system” and in Into the Inferno he travels with volcanologist and friend Clive Oppenheimer (whom he worked on the 2007 film Encounters at the End of the World with) to active volcanoes in Indonesia, Iceland, Ethiopia and, rather impressively, North Korea. Oppenheimer pretty much takes on the role of presenter and Herzog stays behind camera for the majority of the film, narrating the final cut as he usually does. Oppenheimer isn’t exactly the wild man you might expect from a Herzog film but he does have an amazing ability of connecting with just about anybody, no matter where they’re from or what they believe. He is exactly the person you want beside you when peering into a lava-filled volcano. There isn’t half as much theology as I was expecting from the film but the viewer is treated to the odd Herzigoan-style quote – “It is a fire that wants to burst forth and it could not care less about what we are doing up here. This boiling mass is just monumentally indifferent to scurrying roaches, retarded reptiles and vapid humans alike”. Fans will appreciate the references to previous Herzog films though, and not just the ones he’s made about volcanos. It’s also interesting how he incorporates footage from others, such as the French couple Maurice and Katia Krafft, who got dangerously close to volcanoes to film them, much to their demise in 1991. They are the sort of people Herzog would have documented if he’d had the chance but here he honors them and shows off their amazing footage. However, like most of Herzog’s documentaries, the jewel of the crown is the people he meets. The brash American paleontologist in Ethiopia who discovers some of the world’s earliest remains live on camera, the tribal elder of a village on Vanuatu who believes the volcano will, one day, engulf the earth and melt everything until it turns to water, the locals of an Indonesian tribe who have kept a legend of a supernatural American GI called John Frum who will, one day, emerge from the volcano to spread his bounty. When asked what that bounty consisted of, the tribesman shrugs and answers “Candy”. Herzog collects interesting characters like philatelists collect stamps but never are his questions intrusive, nor does he ever try to mock his subjects. This is classic Herzog. Possibly his biggest coop in the film, possibly of his entire career, is the way he gained access to North Korea. There is a volcano there which he films but he doesn’t miss the opportunity of filming life behind the drawn curtain, presenting the world – for the first time – glimpses of what has been largely unseen and certainly never filmed. Herzog keeps the subject on point, but elevates the theology with a brilliant slice of a current fascination. It is hypnotizing and utterly engrossing. Even though you pretty much know what you’re getting into with a Herzog documentary it is never predictable or cliché. The petrified figures of Pompeii are never mentioned for example and everything you think you know about volcanoes is untaught. Completely original but with plenty of classic Herzogian moments to cherish. Brilliant.

The Post

Dir: Steven Spielberg

2017

****

Steven Speilberg made The Post in record time while waiting for post-production special effects to take place on his 2018 adaptation of Ready Player One. He’s a pro and has made making a film in nine months look easy. To be fair, he has surrounded himself in professionals and some of the best in their fields, but I digress, there was good reason for his rush to the cinema screens. This is Liz Hannah’s first screenplay to go into production, picked up by one of the greatest directors of all time. An amazing achievement, especially as it pretty much covers the same story as the 1976 classic All The President’s Men. The story behind the Pentagon Papers has been covered, indeed, in June 2011, the entire Pentagon Papers were declassified and made public. In the 6-3 Court decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." Spielberg saw the similarities between the Nixon administration and the current Trump administration and knew that a re-telling of this story was perfect during the current political climate. In a time were the phrase ‘fake news’ is rife, it is important to take a look back at such historical events and how they were handled. So it is somewhat frustrating that the film doesn’t quite keep with the facts. The New York Times had published the Pentagon Papers before The Washington Post and had set the stage for legal battle that ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the newspaper in the the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). Why the story is told from The Washington Post’s viewpoint, other than to include Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee, is anybodies guess. Spielberg was friends with the Bradlees’, so that may have had something to do with it, however it isn’t clear whether any of it was part of the original script or was part of the rewrites that took place ten weeks before filming. The fact remains however that two historical stories have been merged to tell one and that is often dangerous ground to tread – especially when making a point about the current levels of honesty within the White House. However, most of this can be swept aside somewhat, as the core of the film is relevant and timely. We only see Nixon from a distance in the film but his voice we hear are genuine recordings that say everything you need to hear. I don’t think you should just compare Trump’s administration though, I believe that every government since the Pentagon Papers has remembered the event and have taken precautions – indeed, I believe The Post shows the press in general at the peak of what they should be. Nearly every paper now has an agenda and is owned by someone with political connections who by and large, pull the political strings. Papers now form governments, rather than keep them accountable. The Post is great slice of Spielberg, a slightly toned-down thriller from the director but one that reminds those that knew of the scandal before and also makes clear for those that didn’t. It’s often a shame when you learn that younger generations aren’t aware or interested in such historical events but I personally find it more worrying when generations that lived through it have forgotten or just ignore them. It comes at a perfect time but I wonder if it could have had more of an impact. Meryl Streep is good as always but her character muddied the water somewhat for me. I don’t think her performance was exceptional or award worthy but then I think she is now nominated as a matter of habit. Tom Hanks was good, as were the supporting cast, but I don’t think anyone was stand out but then I think the film needed a strong ensemble, rather than a couple of big performances. One or two Streep scenes aside, the film is suitably calm and un-sensationalized. Many see it as being a bit dull and uncharacteristic of its director but I think the mood captured was perfect for the story. The story is huge and changed everything, the film explains this brilliantly, and if that isn’t understood by the end of the film than I’m afraid it isn’t the film that is at fault. I just wish it was 100% accurate, otherwise why not make a documentary. I loved the various nods to William Goldman’s All The President’s Men, I just hope that a younger audience will now be interested enough to look it up and those that have seen it will revisit it again soon.

The Red Turtle

Dir: Michaël Dudok de Wit

2016

*****

The Red Turtle is an astonishing work of minamalisum, craftsmanship and heaps of symbolisum. I think the story can be interpreted in many different ways but personally I saw it as something of a life guide. The film beguins with an unnamed man, drifting at sea, clambering for life, during a furiocious storm. He awakes shipwrecked and alone on a deserted island in the middle of no where, with only the clothes on his body. After exploring the beautifully hand-painted island, he decides to build a raft, figuring that he holds a much better chance of survival back at sea. Each attempt is scuppered, thanks to the titular Red Turtle, who sinks his raft time after time until he gives up. Infuriated, the man kills the turtle when back on land. Filled with remorse and regret, the man lays next to the body of the turtle and falls asleep, only to discover that the turtle has turned into a women the next morning. The pair live on the island happily ever after and even have a child, the possible meaning to it all really is open to interpretation. Is the secret of happiness confronting and living with one’s remorse? Does the Red Turtle symbolise one’s purpose, a reminder that the pursuit of what is futile is just that, futile. Is it a cautionary tale? Why is the Turtle Red? Is it an environmental warning? So many questions, one could get a little lost by the possibilities. However, as existential as it is (and I generally dislike existentialism), I found it to be remarkably meditative and therapeutic. Its compositions make great use of negative space, making a viewing it on the small screen feel as if you are watching it at the cinema (I can only imagine how wonderful the big screen experience would have been). The film is free from dialogue too, making it about as universal as it gets. Its transcendental wonder will captivate everyone, even the ones who are totally lost by the strange and basic plot. There is a calming balance about the film that is impossible to resist, that I’m sure is integral to the overall aim of the story. Our protagonist is constantly engulfed by the sea, the land and the forest, and goes through all of life’s cycles. He is observed by four curious crabs who, like us, are transfixed by his actions, as well as adding a very slight and welcome injection of humour. It is Robin-ZEN Crusoe, not at all about surviving, but about living. I don’t think there is a direct allegory at play here, if there is then it is more than a little elusive but I really don’t think it matters anyway, it is easy to follow and I think I get the gist of what writer/animator Michaël Dudok de Wit means to convey. Fans of Studio Ghibli certainly won’t be disappointed, although this is co-production (the mother of all you could say) between Ghibli and Wild Bunch. Hayao Miyazaki actually invited Vincent Maraval, head of Wild Bunch, over to visit him at Studio Ghibli head quarters in Japan, specifically to ask him to find the director of 2000’s Father and Daughter, a short film he had fallen in love with. Miyazaki asked de Wit if he could distribute his early short film and if if he could make a feature for them. He agreed to the first but questioned the second, believing that he had misunderstood or that there was a translation error, not quite believing his luck. This is Michaël Dudok de Wit’s debut feature, without Miyazaki he may not have ever had the chance, so The Red Turtle represents a very exciting time in animated movies, and with Miyazaki coming in and out of retirement, Studio Ghibli really does need to expand and branch out if it is to survive and grow. The attention, cultivation and eventual success of The Red Turtle is a great thing for this type of animated venture. Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks still hold the monopoly and studios like Ghibli are fighting the good fight from the other side of the fence. People clearly like both styles of animation, so it is about time they received level pegging.

Father and Daughter

Dir: Michaël Dudok de Wit

2000

****

Hayao Miyazaki, head of Studio Ghibli in Japan, was so moved by Michael Dudok de Wit’s short animated film Father and Daughter, that he sent for the director, asked if he could distribute the film and if he would like to collaborate on a feature length movie. de Wit admitted years later, that he understood Miyazaki’s question regarding distribution but thought that maybe there was a breakdown in translation when it came to working together on a feature length film. He wasn’t joking and de Wit was honoured to work with one of his animation heroes. After many years of development, The RedTurtle was released in 2016, all thanks to 2000’s stunning Father and Daughter. Miyazaki wasn't the film’s only fan however, as Father and Daughter won the Academy Award for Best Short Animation at the 2001 Oscars. The film itself is a watercolour come to life. It’s largely produced in two colours, switching from black and white, brown and white and blue and white. It is occasionally detailed but is, by and large, expressionist in its styling. A Father and young Daughter cycle together to a tree beside a huge body of water. They park their bicycles and embrace before the father, unexpectedly, boards a boat and sails off into the distance, leaving his shocked and distraught Daughter behind. The young girl continues to visit the place where she last saw her father, eagerly anticipating his return, although less and less so over the years. Eventually, the girl is an old women and she visits the spot once more, only to find the water has dried up. She sets out on foot, following the route her father would have taken and eventually finds his boat half buried in the ground. Tired, she decides to lay down in the half submerged boat and falls asleep. When she awakes her father is standing before her, with open arms. If you don’t cry then there is something wrong with you or your eyes. The symbolism is clear and the film is pure poetry. My only gripe is the clichéd French organ music.

The Monk and the Fish

Dir: Michaël Dudok de Wit

1994

****

Michael Dudok de Wit’s Le Moine et le poisson (The Monk and the Fish), is a wonderfully playful short animation, one of the last of its kind to use classic cel animation techniques using simply a brush, Indian Ink and watercolours and no computer involvement whatsoever. Standing next to a water reservoir in a monastery enclave, our titular monk sees a fish and races off to get his net to catch it. However, the fish eludes him and the monk gets more and more agitated as he tries increasingly extreme ways of catching it. He soon gets into the pond himself and also enlists the help of other monks from the monastery. He tries candles and a bow and arrow and chases it night and day to no avail. The more the fish manages to evade him, the more obsessed the monk becomes. He follows the fish out of the pond into a canal, through different landscapes and out of the confines of the monastery. Eventually the chase gets less frantic and the monk and the fish begin to move in harmony. In the wonderfully zen finale, both monk and fish float through a symbolic doorway into a vast open space and drift off into the sky together. It’s hard to decide who comes of best in the end, the monk, the fish or the audience. It’s simple, universal and beautifully unpredictable. It’s also remarkably rewarding, for a story that doesn’t really develop until the last few seconds of the film. It was nominated for the Academy Award for best Animated Short at the 67th Oscars and set Michael Dudok de Wit on his way (he would eventually win for his 2000 short animation Father and Daughter). There is wonderfully playful edge to de Wit’s largely symbolic, serious and zen-like stories, so it is no wonder that years later Studio Ghibli came calling.