A Star Is Born

Dir: Bradley Cooper

2018

****

Even though the original 1937 A Star Is Born and its 1954 and 1976 remakes have all been nominated for at least four Academy Awards each, a 2018 version still seemed like a risky idea. If I’m being honest, when I first heard of it I thought it was a terrible idea, one that I had zero interest in. Clint Eastwood was attached to the project in 2011 and was in talks to direct Beyoncé in his version but thankfully it fell through. Christian Bale, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp and Will Smith were all set to star but it is hard to imagine anyone other than Bradley Cooper in the role. Cooper threw everything he had into the film and it became a passion project and his directional debut. It’s a hell of a debut. Casting Lady Gaga was a stroke of genius and she also threw herself into the project. Cooper and Gaga’s performances were closer to that of Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand’s than Janet Gaynor and Fredric March’s or Judy Garland and James Mason’s but their’s isn’t a copy, just part of the evolution of the characters. An updated version could have been something truly awful, somewhere between The X-Factor and Pop Idol but thankfully the tired talent contest storyline was nowhere to be seen and the music was real, rather than plastic bubblegum pop. I have no problem with Beyoncé but she doesn’t write her own songs, while Lady Gaga has been writing for years. Love her or hate her (I personally love her) Lady Gaga is a talented writer and has been or quite some time. She knows the story as she has seen it first hand and it is clear that between her, Cooper and writers Eric Roth and Will Fetters, this was a passonate team effort. It was Lady Gaga who convinced Cooper that they should sing live. Gaga said she hated watching movies where the actors were not lip-syncing correctly to the songs, so to avoid this and get it right they needed to sing live for the film. Cooper agreed and went through extensive vocal training. While Cooper might not have had much experience singing, he could relate in some respects to his character. Like Jack, Cooper dealt with both alcohol and drug addiction. He has spoken publicly about how sobriety saved both his life and career, and his character Jack, and the script, have a part of him inside them. I didn’t know what to make of the film and I only saw it once it was released on DVD, after many people recommended it to me. I liked how it was filmed instantly but it was the La Vie en Rose that won me over. Cooper plays Jackson Maine, a famous country music singer privately battling an alcohol and drug addiction. After he plays a concert in California, he asks his reliable driver to take him to a bar. Not knowing the area but tiring of the traffic, Jack gets out of the car and walks into the first place he sees; a drag bar with live music. Happy to just drink his whiskey, the club’s promoter recognises him and sits him at the bar where he can see his friend perform. Ally (Gaga), a waitress and singer-songwriter, comes on stage and performs an incredible version of La Vie en Rose, walking across the audience and lying on the bar at the back of the venue, directly in front of a besotted Jack. Jack is amazed by her performance, and they spend the rest of the night talking to each other, where Ally discloses to him the troubles she has faced in pursuing a professional music career. Jack invites Ally to his next show, although she doesn’t quite believe him. Despite her initial refusal she attends and, with Jack's encouragement, sings on stage with him. Jack then invites Ally to go on tour with him, and they form a romantic relationship. In Arizona, Ally and Jack visit the ranch where Jack grew up and where his father is buried, only to discover that his brother and manager Bobby (played by the brilliant Sam Elliott), has sold the land. Angered at his betrayal, Jack punches Bobby, who subsequently quits as his manager. Before doing so, Bobby reveals that he did inform Jack about the sale, but the latter was too inebriated to notice. It is clear that Bobby is the one who raised Jack and has kept him on the straight an narrow as best he could but also takes the brunt of his anger. While on tour Ally meets Rez, a record producer who offers her a contract. Although visibly bothered, Jack still supports her decision. Rez refocuses Ally away from country music and towards pop. Jack misses one of Ally's performances after he passes out drunk in public; he recovers at the home of his best friend George "Noodles" Stone (Dave Chappelle), and later makes up with Ally. There he proposes to Ally with an impromptu ring made from a loop of guitar string and they are married that same day at a church nearby. During Ally's performance on Saturday Night Live, Bobby reconciles with Jack. Later, Jack and Ally fight after he drunkenly voices his disapproval of Ally's new image and music, which is nominated for three Grammy Awards. At the Grammys, a visibly intoxicated Jack performs in a tribute to Roy Orbison, and Ally wins the Best New Artist award. In what is a rather cringeworthy but important scene, Ally goes up on stage to receive her award, Jack follows her, where he promptly wets himself before passing out. Ally's father Lorenzo berates Jack and Ally helps him sober up. Jack joins a rehabilitation program shortly thereafter. Jack recovers in rehab for about two months, where he discloses to his counselor that he attempted suicide when he was 13 years old. He also mentions that he has tinnitus, which has been getting worse. He tearfully apologizes to Ally for his behavior, and returns home. Ally wishes to bring Jack to perform with her on the European leg of her tour; Rez refuses, prompting Ally to cancel the remainder of the tour so she can care for Jack. Rez later confronts Jack, accusing him of holding Ally back. That evening, Ally lies to Jack, and tells him that her record label has cancelled her tour so she can focus on her second album. Jack promises that he will come to her concert that night, but after Ally leaves, he hangs himself in their garage. Ally becomes inconsolable after Jack's death. She is visited by Bobby, who explains Jack's death was Jack's own fault and not hers. Ally takes a song that Jack had written but never performed and sings it at a tribute concert, introducing herself as Ally Maine. Now this sort of thing never usually effects me but this film did. The characters weren’t too far from the actors portraying them and their passion made them feel real. Add the fact that so many of the performances were filmed at real concerts, and the whole story becomes utterly convincing. The characters and story are also partly based on real people, so every emotion is felt as if it were true. The songs are brilliant, and even if they’re not your usual cup of tea, they are somehow universal enough for everyone to appreciate. This is a very contemporary musical that somehow still obeys all of the rules. The original story is clearly timeless when understood and treated properly, which it has been here. It’s a great musical for people who think they don’t like musicals and a great drama for those who still insist that they don’t.

The Limits of Control

Dir: Jim Jarmusch

2009

*****

I thought Jim Jarmusch’s 2009 film The Limits of Control represented an exciting new direction for the iconic director but many people disagreed. I heard many fellow cinephiles suggest that Jarmusch didn’t put enough effort into it, which I totally disagree with. I believe The Limits of Control is part love letter to classics of old and a journey through the things that make Jarmusch tick. Every film he has made has him in it and what he loves most at the time. It looks like something you’d find in a glossy magazine at times and the scenery and architecture featured is beautiful but I would argue that it is far more than just a good looking film. It’s a neo-noir, a classic black and white but contemporary and in full colour. It features an impressive mixed cast – which is now expected of a Jarmusch film - with some particularly special performances. Jarmusch doesn’t just include cameos for the sake of it. The writing is subtle in places and like having your face smashed in with a poignancy hammer the rest of the time – I could say that much of the film is open to interpretation but I don’t think that is the case, I think a lot of it is just personal to Jarmusch and everyone is welcome to join him. Some of the locations should have had billings of their own, it is a visually rich and beautiful film. The film never feels quite what it is as we follow a lone wolf assassin carrying out a job in sunny Spain. In an airport, our Lone Man (Isaach de Bankolé) is being instructed on his mission by Creole (Alex Descas). The mission itself is left unstated and the instructions are cryptic, including such phrases as "Everything is subjective," "The universe has no center and no edges; reality is arbitrary," and "Use your imagination and your skills." After the meeting in the airport he travels to Madrid and then on to Seville, meeting several people in cafés and on trains along the way (a Jarmusch signature move). Each meeting has the same pattern: he orders two espressos at a cafe and waits, his contact arrives and in Spanish asks, "You don't speak Spanish, right?" in different ways, to which he responds, "No." The contacts tell him about their individual interests such as molecules, art, or film (allowing Jarmusch to pay tribute to friend Aki Kaurismäki and hero Andrei Tarkovsky, then the two of them exchange matchboxes. A code written on a small piece of paper is inside each matchbox, which Lone Man reads and then eats. These coded messages lead him to his next rendezvous. He repeatedly encounters a woman (Paz de la Huerta) who is always either completely nude or wearing only a transparent raincoat. She invites him to have sex with her but he declines, stating that he never has sex while he is working. These scenes are about as sensual as it gets. One phrase that Creole, the man in the airport tells him is repeated throughout the movie: "He who thinks he is bigger than the rest must go to the cemetery. There he will see what life really is: a handful of dirt." This phrase is sung in a flamenco song in a club in Seville at one point in his journey. In Almería, he is given a ride in a pickup truck - driven by a companion of the Mexican (Gael García Bernal) - on which the words La vida no vale nada ('life is worth nothing') are painted, a phrase Guitar (John Hurt) says to him in Seville, and he is taken to Tabernas desert. There lies a fortified and heavily guarded compound. After observing the compound from afar, he somehow penetrates its defenses and waits for his target inside the target's office. The target (Bill Murray) asks how he got in, and he answers, "I used my imagination." After the murder with a guitar string, he rides back to Madrid, where he locks away the suit he has worn throughout the movie and changes into a sweatsuit bearing the national flag of Cameroon. Before exiting the train station onto a crowded sidewalk he throws away his last matchbox. I think there is a lot going on here but essentially this is a journey through cinema, albeit a very personal one to Jarmusch. If it was explained or released as part of a celebration of film festival then people would be praising it from the roof-tops but that wasn’t the case. I struggle to think of another film that contains so much attention to detail or one that looks as good 100% of the time. It may never be seen as a classic but as a passionate lover of film I regard it as a treat, a go to film when I really need a cinematic pick-me-up and some visual inspiration.

The Old Man & the Gun

Dir: David Lowery

2018

****

All good things must come to an end and I think Robert Redford has chosen a fine film to end his career on. So many great actors have ended their careers on a bum note, not always by choice but many have had such a bad experience and have tired of the process, that they’ve simply walked off set never to return to the studio again. Redford has clearly learned from other people’s mistakes, not that he’s ever made a bad film. Retirement called and he wanted to go out on a high, so that is exactly what he did. Based on David Grann's 2003 article in The New Yorker - which was later collected in Grann's 2010 book The Devil and Sherlock Holmes – The Old Man & the Gun stars Redford alongside Casey Affleck, Danny Glover, Tika Sumpter, Tom Waits and Sissy Spacek. Redford produced the film with others and director David Lowery also wrote the screenplay. While the story is based on real events, the film is a work of fiction. Writer/director David Lowery had attempted to write the true crime version of the story based on Grann's published version of what really happened but Robert Redford never felt like he fit into that. According to Lowery himself, his idea of who Robert Redford was as an actor never really fit into the true story of Forrest Tucker. So after many, many drafts, he realized that what he needed to write was the movie that Forrest Tucker would have wanted to see. He needed to write the version of Forrest Tucker that he saw in his own head as opposed to the factual one. There was a thin line between two, but the end result is a character that was Tucker but was also a character that Redford could mould and make his own. I’m not sure on whose authority, but the film is riddled with subtle references to Redford’s career, making it a great film in its own right as well as a massive Easter egg for his fans. The movie begins in 1982 with career criminal Forrest Tucker (Redford) robbing a bank with a gun (which you don’t see) and a smile (which you most definitely do see). The 61 year old has been a wanted man for two years, since his daring escape from San Quentin State Prison in 1979. The robbery goes smoothly, like he’s done it hundreds of times before (which he had) and instead of trying to out run the police who are chasing him, Tucker decides to stop behind a woman on the side of the road who clearly has car trouble. No one would expect a bank robber to stop in such a situation so the police continue the chase, believing Tucker must be somewhere ahead in the distance. The woman, Jewel (Sissy Spacek), who is grateful for his help, buys Tucker lunch at a diner. Despite introducing himself with a fake name, Tucker becomes drawn to Jewel to the point of revealing that he is a bank robber. The two later spend time together on Jewel's farm where Tucker becomes enamored with her and her life. Tucker soon hatches a plan to pay off the rest of Jewel's mortgage as a surprise but becomes frustrated after her bank tells him that this would require Jewel's signature on some documents, negating any surprise. Tucker goes on to conduct a string of heists with his long-time partners John Waller (Tom Waits) and Teddy Green (Danny Glover), often without having to draw his gun from under his coat. Dallas Police Detective John Hunt (Casey Affleck) compiles police sketches from witnesses who describe Tucker as charming and gentlemanly. Detective Hunt’s enthusiasm for police work is renewed when Tucker actually robs the bank he’s in without him knowing. The sketches are soon displayed on the evening news, asking anyone with information to come forward. Waller and Green are unaware of this and Tucker decides not to tell them. Shortly afterwards, Hunt's investigation is taken over by the FBI. A woman named Dorothy (Elisabeth Moss) comes forward stating that she is Tucker's daughter. Although he is no longer on the case, Hunt agrees to meet with her. Dorothy says that she was born while Tucker was in prison making Tucker unaware of her or his grandchild. Hunt is led to Tucker's former lawyer who says that Tucker has never pulled the trigger of his gun. According to his lawyer, police reports of Tucker firing during a standoff are false as it was simply his car's engine backfiring. Later, during a night out with Jewel, Tucker happens to recognize Detective Hunt who is with his wife Maureen (Tika Sumpter). Tucker tries to boost Hunt's confidence but becomes unnerved when Hunt calls him by his real name, "Forrest", indicating that the recognition is mutual. Later that evening, police attempt to capture Tucker as he arrives home. He flees, but again his car backfires, prompting police to shoot at him, striking him in the arm. He eludes them and makes his way to Jewels farm. As it's the early hours of the morning, he decides not to wake Jewel and instead takes one of her horses for a ride. Tucker had never ridden a horse before and, as was explained earlier on in the film when they were both in conversation, it was on his list of things he wanted to do. While riding, several police vehicles come down the road and turn onto the farm's property. Tucker resigns himself to surrendering and does. When Jewel visits him in prison, Tucker gives her a list of his sixteen previous escapes from reformatories and prisons, but line number seventeen is left blank. On Jewel's advice, he remains in San Quentin until the end of his sentence. When Tucker is released from prison, Jewel is there to pick him up. She takes him to her farm and sets up a room for him, telling him he can stay as long as he likes. Everything seems fine but Tucker becomes aloof and distracted. One day, months after his release, Tucker tells Jewel he is going out on an errand. He calls Detective Hunt from a street-side payphone, and after some brief banter, Tucker sounds distracted and when Hunt asks him if he is okay, Tucker says "I'm about to be.", then hangs up the phone and walks into a bank across the street. A title card states that "Tucker robbed four banks that day before eventually being caught. While he was being arrested, the police noted Tucker was smiling." It’s every bit as cool as you’d hope Redford’s last film would be. The direction is wonderful and the entire film is shot on 16mm film. The editing is king throughout, with each turn of events keeping the audience intrigued. Redford said in an interview that he wanted his last film to be fun, and that is exactly what the film is, as well as effortlessly cool and full of charm. I loved how Lowery added clips from 1966’s The Chase (starring a young Redford) and clips from 1971’s Two-Lane Blacktop after seeing similarities between Forrest Tucker and Warren Oates' character. It sets the tone beautifully. The stand out scene is a sort of dream sequence that sees Redford being chased by several police cars in the middle of a country road. Once caught, Redford smiles at the police before shooting them with his finger. It’s a hell of a way to end a career and its authentic too, rather than a man trying to mimic or compete with his younger self. I’m sad that such a shining career has come to an end but I’m thrilled that it ended on such a high note. An instant classic.

Peterloo

Dir: Mike Leigh

2018

*****

Peterloo is a dark chapter in British history, one that is often overlooked and forgotten. This is why we need directors such as Mike Leigh and Ken Loach and I fear for the days when they’re no longer around. If I watched Peterloo without knowing who directed it however, then I would have guessed Ken Loach and I would say the only negative I have about it is that there wasn’t quite enough Mike Leigh there. That said, I love his films such as Topsy-Turvey and Naked, and these are totally different films. Peterloo couldn’t really have the same humour often used by Leigh, it had to be factual and quite serious. However, Leigh’s unique charm comes through loud and clear in the script and in the performances. The film begins at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. A young bugler Joseph wanders around the battle field, bugle in hand, amazed that the battle is over and somehow he has survived. He walks all the way after serving in the Duke of Wellington's army to Manchester and his close-knit family headed by parents Joshua and Nellie. Joshua, son Robert, daughter Mary and daughter-in-law Esther all earn a living from manual labour in a cotton mill. An economic depression makes work impossible for the traumatised Joseph to find, and threatens the family's livelihood altogether. The family are sympathetic to the then-radical campaigns for equal civil and political rights for all free men, and against the Corn Laws that prevent them from buying cheaper imported grain. We follow Joshua, Joseph and Robert as they attend political meetings where local agitators including John Knight, Samuel Bamford and John Bagguley speak out against the system of government. Meanwhile, the local authorities, led by magistrates Colonel Fletcher, Reverend Hay, Reverend Ethelston and Mr Norris, and Deputy Chief Constable Nadin, spy on the radical movement and wait for an excuse to arrest its leaders. Likewise, Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth is determined to suppress radical politics. When a disgruntled Londoner smashes the window of the Prince Regent's coach, Sidmouth uses this as a pretext for suspending Habeas corpus. Bamford and his friend Joseph Healey travel south to London to hear the famous radical Henry 'Orator' Hunt speak at a political meeting. Hunt has a reputation for vanity, but Bamford persuades Manchester businessman Joseph Johnson to invite Hunt to address a mass meeting at St Peter's Fields, while the Home Office discovers this invitation by intercepting Johnson's letter. Arriving at Manchester, Hunt goes into hiding in Johnson's home. Richards, an undercover Home Office agent, is able to provoke Bagguley and fellow radicals Drummond and Johnston into publicly calling for armed insurrection, leading to their arrest and imprisonment. The magistrates plan to suppress Hunt's meeting and make an example of the attendees using the local mounted militia, the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, and a regular army detachment led by General Byng. However, Hunt remains certain that he can lead a peaceful rally, and sidelines Bamford when he warns of the likelihood of brutal treatment by the authorities. On the day of the meeting, thousands of people march into Manchester from the surrounding towns to hear Hunt speak at St Peter's Fields, including Nellie and Joshua and their family. Bamford leads a procession from Middleton, but leaves in disgust once it becomes clear that Hunt wants to be the only speaker allowed to address the crowd. Meanwhile, General Byng has left his deputy in command in order to attend a genteel horseracing meet. A special committee of magistrates has been assembled to take charge of events, chaired by Mr Hulton. Norris, who urges restraint, is overruled. Once Hunt begins to speak, Reverend Ethelston reads the Riot Act to the crowd. Although the crowd pays no attention to Ethelston, the magistrates are now legally empowered to disperse the meeting. The Yeomanry cavalry assault the peaceful assembly with sabres drawn, while Hunt and Johnson are arrested by Nadin's men. The army tries to clear St Peter's Fields, but in the mayhem the crowd is unable to escape before several people are killed and many more injured. Joseph is wounded with a sabre and later dies. Despite the massacre, the Prince Regent sends his congratulations to the magistrates for suppressing radicalism in Manchester. It enrages me when people suggest Leigh and Loach get of their soapbox, as this is a brilliant look at how very little has changed in 200 years. Much criticism for the film was aimed at the length and content. It was lambasted by the papers for being too long and too ‘talky’, which goes to show the state of things. Each and every action has a reaction and everything that cumulated in the horrific massacre is explained for all to understand. It wasn’t just a thrown potato that caused a massacre. History is brought to life by characters and performances who help us understand the parallels to current events and what life was like for them; the differences and similarities. The teaching of sociology is in woeful decline so we need films like this. The history aspect is factual and nothing has been changed to suit a formulaic structure. People complain that the massacre scene is too short but I would argue that it is sharp, effective and to the point without being gratuitous. It’s still graphic and shows it for what it was. The performances are superb, with a plethora of great actors supporting each other. The truth is that there are several award winning performances here but when there are so many in one place they never seem to get nominated, which I can never quite understand. Although the film is visually impressive and the set piece etc are all brilliant I can understand why it may have been overlooked for other films but I think the overall screenplay and script has been woefully ignored. The fact that this sort of film still upsets people tell you everything you need to know about the state of things and why such films need to continue. It’s an amazingly detailed slice of history as well as an important one.

13th

Dir: Ava DuVernay

2016

*****

Ava DuVernay’s documentary focusing on the 13th Amendment is a long time coming. The content is well known to many but not known to nearly enough people. The connection between the ‘War on Drugs’ the mass incarceration in America and the deep rooted racism in it’s society are clear from the outside looking in but now, when more and more people are taking an interest in politics, it is good to have this document that backs up everything it states and offers a balanced viewpoint on the matter. DuVernay contends that slavery has been perpetuated in practices since the end of the American Civil War through such actions as criminalizing behavior and enabling police to arrest poor freedmen and force them to work for the state under convict leasing; suppression of African Americans by disenfranchisement, lynchings and Jim Crow; politicians declaring a war on drugs that weigh more heavily on minority communities and, by the late 20th century, mass incarceration of people of color in the United States. The film begins with an audio clip of former President Barack Obama stating that the US has 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prisoners. This film features several prominent activists, academics, politicians from "both sides of the aisle," and public figures, such as Angela Davis, Bryan Stevenson, Van Jones, Newt Gingrich, Cory Booker, Henry Louis Gates Jr., as well as many others. It explores the economic history of slavery and post-Civil War racist legislation and practices that replaced it as "systems of racial control" and forced labor from the years after the abolition of slavery to the present, providing proof for all of it as the film continues. Southern states criminalized minor offenses, arresting freedmen and forcing them to work when they could not pay fines; institutionalizing this approach as convict leasing (which created an incentive to criminalize more behavior). They disenfranchised most blacks across the South at the turn of the 20th century, excluding them from the political system (including juries), at the same time that lynching of blacks by white mobs reached a peak in these decades. In addition to such violence, Jim Crow legislation was passed by Democrats to legalize segregation and suppress minorities, forcing them into second-class status. Following the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s that restored civil rights, the film notes the Republican Party's appeal to southern white conservatives, including the claim to be the party to fight the war on crime and war on drugs, which began to include mandatory, lengthy sentencing. A new wave of minority suppression began, reaching African Americans and others in the northern, mid-western and western cities where many had migrated in earlier decades. After their presidential candidates lost to Republicans, Democratic politicians such as Bill Clinton joined the war on drugs. He would later publicly apologise for his mistake but I personally don’t buy it. As a result, from the early 1970s to the present, the rate of incarceration and the number of people in prisons has climbed dramatically in the United States, although the rate of crime has continued to decline since the late 20th century. As late as the 2016 presidential election, certain politicians worked to generate fear of crime, claiming high rates in New York City, for instance, which was not true. The documentary says crime is lower overall than it has been in decades, but Republican candidates are said to have raised it to create fear. Private prison contractors had entered the market to satisfy demand as arrests and sentences increased, forming an independent group with its own economic incentives to criminalize minor activities and lengthen sentences in order to keep prisons full. Politicians and businessmen in rural areas encouraged construction of prisons to supply local jobs, and they also have had incentives to keep prisons full. Decades later, studies have shown that private prisons are no more efficient and are often more abusive than those run by the federal or state governments. The federal Bureau of Prisons announced in 2016 its intention to stop contracting with private providers for prison services. The over-incarceration of adults has severely damaged generations of black and minority families and their children. The film explores the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (known as ALEC), which is backed by corporations, that has provided Republican state and federal legislators with draft legislation to support the prison-industrial complex. Only after some of the relationships were revealed did corporations like Wal-Mart and others receive criticism and drop out of the organization. Many businesses continue to make huge profits from prisons, including Securus, which provides telephone services at high rates and Aramark which provides food services that are substandard. The film explores the demonization of minority poor through these decades to serve political ends, contributing to unrealistic fears of minorities by whites and to persistent problems of police brutality against minority communities. In the 21st century, the regularity of fatal police shootings of unarmed minorities in apparently minor confrontations has been demonstrated by videos taken by bystanders and by the increasing use of cams in police cars or worn by officers; DuVernay ends the film with a graphic procession of recent videos of fatal shootings of blacks by police, what Manohla Dargis describes as, after the previous discussion, having the effect of "a piercing, keening cry”. The last statement by one of the interviewees rings true, when he talks about people asking others how they could just sit by and let atrocities happen during their life time. He remarks that people say that if they were around at the time of suffering, apartheid or segregation they would do something but the truth of the matter is that such things are happening now and most people aren’t doing a damn thing. It’s important for such films to show what is happening right now and how they came about. With a relatively young history, it is shocking that so many American’s aren’t aware of such things. It was Michael Moore’s book Stupid White Men that opened my eyes to much of the content of the film but film will always reach more people and DuVernay’s documentary is easy to follow and covers everything, providing everything you need to know through fact over opinion. The world needs to wake up and get educated, this is one of few valuable sources of information available to most, making it one of the most important documentaries in decades.

First Man

Dir: Damien Chazelle

2018

****

First Man is a good reference when looking how trends and opinions have changed in a relatively short amont of time. Based on First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hansen, the project was originally announced in 2003, with Clint Eastwood slated to direct. For what ever reason this rendition fell though and director Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La la Land) and writer Josh Singer (Spotlight, The Post) were hired, changing the style and approach of the film. It’s great, but not exactly what you’d expect from a film executively produced by Steven Spielberg. I can only imagine what the patriotic melodrama Eastwood would have made of the whole thing would have looked like but I’m so glad film makers have now taken us away from that sort of thing and made films like this as they should be made. First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong is about Neil A. Armstrong and so is the film. It isn’t weighted down by country, duty and any ridiculous notion of Armstrong being heroic or special. He was a fascinating man with lots of positives and lots of flaws, we only really know him for being the first man on the moon, but what about everything else? How did he get to that position? What drove him? What on earth was going through his mind? That’s the great thing about this rather original space movie, it really does delve into the mindset of the man without relying on moody silence and handsome glares (even though Ryan Gosling is the king of moody silence and handsome glares). It feels like a million miles away from what you’d expect from a Damien Chazelle movie – for starters there’s no music – but he manages the same trick he uses in his all singing all dancing numbers here, in the stillness of reality. It’s all about the balance. His film doesn’t rely on 50s and 60s set-pieces and flat-top haircuts. He shows how life then isn’t that different from life now, so we’re not watching these events happening to someone we feel disconnected from because they’re from another era. The clothes and cars are different (not as good) but people were the same. Armstrong is of course a historical figure but before that he was just a man. It is impossible to put one mans life – or even the thoughts and feeling one man has in one week – into a 90 minute film, but Singer manages to explore Armstrong’s mindset as well as the key events that led to Apollo 11’s mission to the moon in 1969. I’m a bit of a space nerd. But there was plenty here that I was unaware of. It covers the time Armstrong spent as a NASA test pilot flying the X-15 rocket plane and the time he inadvertently bounced off the atmosphere, almost loosing control landing safely. It’s an exiting scene, but I had no idea that his colleagues expressed concern that his recent record of mishaps was due to distraction and that he was grounded for a period of time. I was unaware that his two-year old daughter died of a brain tumour, or that he had researched tirelessly to find possible treatments. He applied to be part of Project Gemini and was accepted to NASA Astronaut Group 2 when he was still shaken with grief but he never let his feelings be known to anyone. It explores how Armstrong befriended Elliot See and Ed White and how the space race developed in its later years. To properly realise the fear and tension that the astronauts were going through, the story explores the T-38 crash that killed Elliot See and Charles Bassett, the spinning incident when Gemini 8 docked with the Agena target vehicle and when the Apollo 1 crew are killed in a fire during a test launch. Armstrong also had to eject from an aircraft that nearly killed him the following year, shortly before being selected to command Apollo 11. We’ve seen the emotion involved in such events before in pretty much ever fictional and non-fiction film about space travel but never has it been so muted and so real. The truth is Armstrong never let his emotion out, which begs the question: Was he the best man for the job because of it or was he a liability? The film asks in a respectful manner, his sons Mark and Rick said that First Man was the most accurate portrayal of their father and their mother they could have hoped for, which is good enough for me. They even found the blue-prints for the Armstrong house and rebuilt it for the film. The detail is superb, with the special effects working brilliantly from a different angle. There is no CGI used during the film and no green screen. The lunar surface was recreated by building a set on the Vulcan quarry in Atlanta and the pods the astronauts sat in were built to scale using original plans. LED displays of up to 10 meters were used for the shuttle scenes. These projected images that would simulate the exterior of the spacecraft, both the earth and space. Next to the screens, several simulators were built, each corresponding to a spacecraft. These were programmed to move synchronized with the images of the spherical LED screens that could be seen through the windows. Chazelle chose this technique because it allowed the actors to get more into the role; instead of seeing a green screen, they saw the outside environment recreated with visual effects. It’s a level of detail that doesn’t go unnoticed and I would imagine if you were an actor you’d want to be in a Chazelle film for the sheer experience. I thought it was a brilliant drama with such impressive detail that it did Armstrong and his memory justice. It’s truly revolutionary in its realism, although I didn’t think Buzz Aldrin came off particularly well but maybe it was accurate. I met Buzz once and had my photo taken with him, I wish this film had been made before then so I could have asked him about it (not that I didn’t have anything else to ask him about). The film didn’t do as well as had hoped, which is a little puzzling. Maybe people feared it would be a musical in space, maybe it wasn’t actiony enough. I like to think it wasn’t the fact that Florida Senator Marco Rubio described the omission of the moment Armstrong and Aldrin planted the American flag as "total lunacy" that did it. You can clearly see the American flag on the moon, just not the moment it was put in the ground. Donald Trump soon threw in his overblown opinion and said "It's almost like they're embarrassed at the achievement coming from America, I think it's a terrible thing. When you think of Neil Armstrong and when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the American flag. For that reason, I wouldn't even want to watch the movie." This comment says it all really. If you are interested in a detailed and intelligent retelling of the Apollo 11 mission, the events leading to it and the first man on the moon, then you’ll enjoy the film, but if you are a knuckle-dragging moron who simply wants action and thinks the flag is really the first thing that comes into peoples minds when they think of the moon, then don’t bother. I suspect it was the scene involving the protests aimed at NASA, the space race and the money being spent on it when poverty was rife, the civil rights movement was struggling and America were involved in a pointless war. The song "Whitey on the Moon" during the protest sequence is a cover of the famous song by singer/poet Gil Scott-Heron. It stands as a critique of the economic priorities of the Space Race for many of the economically and social disenfranchised at the time. It wasn’t a political statement by Chazelle, just another detailed look at history, one that some people still find hard to accept.

Being Frank: The Chris Sievey Story

Dir: Steve Sullivan

2019

*****

I’m not sure how I’d explain Frank Sidebottom to someone who was unaware of his existence and his phenomenon. I guess now, thanks to Steve Sullivan’s loving documentary I don’t have to, but I don’t think I could ever fully describe the excitement and anticipation felt when going to see Frank at one of his live performances. I was lucky to have seen him twice, once at a music festival and once performing upstairs in a pub. Both performances were totally different from one another but both had the same magic. I grew up with Frank on television, he was in all the kids shows on Saturday mornings and then on the adult shows in the evening. I think most people would refer to him as being a ‘cult icon’ but actually, in the late 80s and early 90s Frank was mainstream. I did attempt to explain Frank to an America acquaintance of mine once but it didn’t go very well, especially as they had seen Jon Ronson’s 2014 film starring Michael Fassbender. Ronson, who once played keyboard in Frank’s band, wrote a book about Frank just after he passed. I’m not sure whether the book or film had been released at the time he was interviewed for Steve Sullivan’s documentary but he basically explained in his book that he had spoken to Frank (Chris Sievey) before he died about various things and the subject of biography came up. Sievey stated that if anyone were to make a film about Frank then it should be entirely fictional, and after he died that is exactly what Ronson set out to make. It’s a wonderful film, nothing really to do with the real Frank Sidebottom at all but it’s the sort of weird nonsense that Sievey would have enjoyed. The truth about Frank is a little more weird than the film in many ways and unfortunately with a level of sadness. Steve Sullivan’s Being Frank: The Chris Sievey Story was funded by a grassroots Kickstarter campaign that launched way back in May 2013. I backed the campaign on the day it was launched and have been both astonished and elated at the level of devotion and commitment from Steve Sullivan throughout the project. His campaign updates were little fireworks in my inbox, full of fascinating stories about things he had found in Sievey’s archive, things fans had sent him and stories he’d been told by friends and family who he had interviewed. Many included audio recordings, short videos and photos as well as funny anecdotes. I would see that I had an update in my inbox and I would save reading it until my tea break so I could get comfy and enjoy it. It is probably the longest campaign I have backed but it has been well worth the wait. Steve Sullivan went through hundreds of boxes full of recordings, drawings, photos and things written down by Sievey spanning several decades. Sievey threw nothing away. In order to produce the most authentic document of his life, Steve knew he had to go through every single audio and video tape, every photo and scrap of paper in order to tell Sievey/Frank’s story properly, and that is exactly what he did. Most film makers, no matter how passionate, would have given up before now and would have used archive footage that would have been at hand and easy to get to but Steve kept digging for gold – gold he would end up finding plenty of. Expectation was high, it had been almost six years, I’d moved twice and become a father in that time but I hadn’t forgotten about Frank. Sitting down to watch the film was like having the door to Fort Knox opened to me for a private viewing. I expected more than what I was expecting – if that makes any sense – and it still ended up being more than I ever expected. The documentary is full of great interviews, loads of footage I’d never seen before and was a fascinating insight to Sievey’s life. It’s funny, but seeing Sievey take off the mask had such an effect on my I can only compare it with when I was seven years old and open-mouthed as I watched Darth Vader tell Luke Skywalker that he was his father. I didn’t realise I’d get so emotional watching it. I knew of Sievey’s band The Freshies, indeed, part of the Kickstarter campaign pledge package was to receive various goodies from Sievey’s archive. I got a beautiful original Freshies flyer for a gig they did in the late 70s. What I didn’t know was that Frank was a character developed by Sievey to promote the band. Frank was their ‘super fan’ and would act as a support act. It was a silly idea that came out of a fancy dress party Sievey attended with his wife that grew into something more. Sievey wanted his band to be huge – they should have been huge – but for whatever reason it just didn’t happen and Frank took off instead. It’s hard to say when the resentment started, maybe it was always there but Sievey and Frank continued when the band didn’t and the pair gained a huge following of adoring fans. There was nothing like Frank Sidebottom before and they’ll be nothing like him again. I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised that he was an alcoholic and a drug user, as he kept the same level of energy throughout his career, whether it was live on stage to an audience of thousands or taking small groups of fans on tours of Timperley town centre. It wasn’t just the drink and drug that pushed him though, in fact it was those things at all, it was the fire inside him that made him go above and beyond and throw his all into every little thing that he did. The drink and drugs was to cope with the duel identity and the huge success that came in a relatively short space of time. I have to say, I thought I’d be laughing a lot more than I did (which was still a lot) but I hadn’t expected to be on the brink of tears quite so much. Maybe I didn’t want to know as much as I thought – of course I did – but in the end no one really knows what the relationship between Frank and Chris was, it’s one of those little mysteries that should remain as such. I was glad that the documentary was so honest, Sievey – like most geniuses – had his flaws. His enigma is impossible to describe really and at this point there seems little point trying, one should simply enjoy the huge body of work he has left us where you can find it – this film being first and the permanent exhibition of his archive at Manchester’s Central Library second. When I think of Frank I think of other truly great national treasures such as John Otway, Graham Fellows, John Cooper Clark and Vic & Bob but as wonderful as they are, Frank was and is something truly unique. Fitting such a life into just 100 minutes took passion and dedication (years of) but making sure the full story was told with such  balance, integrity, respect and love is something else. This is something special, a loving tribute without any of the usual documentary clichés, that is made by a fan for the fans (primarily) that everyone will enjoy. Definitely not bobbins.