The Theory of Everything. A Review.

   The Theory of Everything gives us a brief history of a remarkable relationship, the story of Jane and Stephen Hawking, their triumphs and defeats. Stephen is known worldwide as one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation, The Theory of Everything depicts his rise to fame, as well as his fight against devastating Motor Neurone Disease, giving the audience a full picture of Hawking’s life. 

   Based on Jane’s book, Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen, The Theory of Everything gives us something remarkable, a biopic not of a man but of a couple, this required a remarkable Jane. Felicity Jones is brilliantly cast as the woman who married Stephen Hawking, giving a complex performance that proves Jane was so much more than that. Jones commands the screen, it doesn’t matter if she is an 18 year old school girl or a 40-something mother of 3, it is difficult to take your eyes off her. Every line is delivered with precision; warm and tender when she needs to be, but never anything less than fiercely intelligent and capable. It is a bold performance that refuses to be sidelined, thoroughly deserving of her academy award nomination for best Actress in a leading role. 

   Eddie Redmayne transforms before our eyes as Stephen, not just the voice and mannerisms, there is a physical transformation that is an incredible achievement worthy of recognition. As Stephen changes, so does Redmayne’s performance; awkwardly charming in those early Cambridge days, increasingly frustrated as the weight of his condition and science tie him down, finally inspiring as the Hawking that is known today. As the film progresses, Redmayne is almost acting through a mask, yet always we can read what is meant to be written on his face, be it pain or a wry smile.

   While the central story focuses on Jane and Stephen, the supporting cast are equally excellent. Standing out in particular are Harry Lloyd and David Thewlis, Lloyd’s reaction to learning about Stephen’s condition was particularly moving, while Thewlis is perhaps as reassuring screen presence as there is. Charlie Cox could perhaps have had more development as the Hawking’s friend Johnathan, however the script keeps tightly focused on the points of view of Stephen and Jane, meaning supporting characters appear slightly unknowable at times.

   The Theory of Everything’s is a very bright film, which can be appreciated to an extent because there is a trend of films being far too dark. At times the cinematography of Benoit Delhomme is perhaps too conspicuous; in one emotional scene in a church the lighting increases in intensity behind a stained-glass window bathing the characters in dappled light, not a controversial technique but slightly unnecessary. At its best, The Theory of Everything is visually arresting, one image of Stephen in his chair looking out to sea lasts only seconds but I will not be forgetting it anytime soon. Biopic films almost always necessitate montage sequences to cover years quickly, The Theory of Everything attempts to sell these montages as home video footage shot on old cameras - with all the sepia and screen tearing that involves. At first I wasn’t sold on the technique, however it fits in with the overall production design which is consistently convincing, transporting the action back to the 1970s complete with camper vans and patterned roll-mats (I actually think there is one very similar in my attic). 

   Watching The Theory of Everything, with its themes of the power of time and love, I was struck by a comparison with Christopher Nolan’s excellent Interstellar. In both films if there is an antagonist at all it is time, the inevitability of Stephen’s physical decline looms over the film like a ticking clock. Another common theme in both films is the power of love, okay not exactly breaking new cinematic ground, however both films seem to suggest love not as an abstract noun but as a real power. I would not presume to suggest that Stephen’s (or anyone else’s) fight against his Motor Neurone disease has been anything but hard work, however it is a powerful theme in the film that love can give characters extraordinary strength. It is the strength of these themes that elevates a story of ordinary people to an epic scale, and while Nolan’s protagonists solve their problems with black holes, the wonderfully British Theory of Everything highlights the virtues of a restorative cup of tea. 

   One more comparison before I’m done, I could not help but be reminded of Walk The Line. In the biopic of the country music legend, the rockstar disappears behind his sunglasses and likes to be called simply “Cash”. In The Theory of Everything, the focus is rightly upon Stephen, not Hawking. Of course the film charts his rise through the scientific ranks from the cloisters of Cambridge to a stage in front of thousands of admirers, however Stephen does not disappear behind the mask of Hawking, instead Redmayne and co give us a real glimpse into the man. This is perhaps the reason the film works so well, because it isn’t about the rockstar and his songs, its about the pain he goes through writing them. It is, like the book that inspired it, about life with Stephen. 

   Stephen has dedicated his professional life to finding a theory that explains everything; from the big ideas like the movement of the planets, to the smallest particles which we cannot see. The Theory of Everything is a film which explores the biggest themes, but does so through minute details, the little things like a cup of tea or a box of washing detergent, a pen falling from a table, a determined smile against all the odds. In the closing shots of the film, while Stephen does not yet have a theory for everything, there is a note of hope - that the things that mattered most to Stephen in the world could not be explained by any theory, save that the small things matter. 

WHO: Mr and Mrs Hawking. Jones and Redmayne are superb.

WHAT: The sheer Britishness of the whole film.

WHY: If you are in need of inspiration.

WHEN: Here is a handy timetable from the excellent Cottage Road Cinema, go see it soon

http://www.cottageroad.co.uk/programme.php

Birdman. A Review.

   As I sit writing this review, Catch Me If You Can plays in the background in which conman pilot impersonator Leonardo DiCaprio is greeted by his father with “my son, the Birdman”. I had to laugh at the coincidence but then I realised there might be a comparison worth making, both DiCaprio and Keaton play men obsessed with how they are perceived, men who risk everything, and to an extent men so caught up in their delusions that they don’t see the damage they are doing to those around them - their heads up in the clouds.

   Birdman is the story of Riggan Thomas, former hollywood superhero star who is trying to resurrect his career by directing and staring in a broadway play. He must navigate difficult costars, a fresh out of rehab daughter, critics, and his own ego if he is to stand any chance of success. 

   Director Alexander Gonzalez Innaritu has drawn passionate performances from his entire cast. It is as though the cast are channelling the limited time they had for the shoot into their character’s desperation, they all seem on edge - giving the film an energy in scenes which might otherwise be routine. Keaton steals the show as Riggan in a performance of two parts, he is vain yet fragile, egotistical yet insecure. Riggan can at times be almost loveable, which Keaton manages through effortless charm, yet he can also be pitiful, threatening, and downright creepy. At the same time as putting together the Russian Doll of neurosis that it Riggan Thompson, Keaton also delivers in guttural tones the cynical and twisted inner monologue of Birdman, a presence that seems like a separate character, whom some pundits have dubbed Riggan’s Lady Macbeth.

   While Keaton stalks the hallways of the film’s theatre setting pretty much punching holes in the scenery, he is surrounded by a more than capable ensemble cast. Emma Stone is an electric screen presence as Riggan’s estranged daughter Sam. Sam is almost as damaged as her Father, yet it manifests in a much more 21st century way - derision and detachment. When Sam does deign to speak to her father she imparts some cutting truths in a scene that steals the film for me, it is not just the tempo and emotion of her tirade against her father’s delusions, but the quiet beats as well - what Emma Stone can bring to the screen with just a pair of downcast eyes is mesmerising.

   The rest of the cast impress without exception. Edward Norton sends himself up as an intense and abrasive method actor, in fact one of my few complaints is that we didn’t get enough of Norton and he seemed to disappear in the last act. Naomi Watts and Andrea Riseborough both have something of the old Hollywood about them as actresses who are larger than life on the stage yet as delicate as porcelain once the curtain goes down, again it is a shame that such convincing performances are given so little screen time, the downside of having such an incredible cast is that the audience wants more of everyone, it is to Innaritu’s credit that he didn’t let his actor’s screen presence get the better of him, and used his players sparingly. 

   Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki already had a distinguished career and padded out many a film student’s dissertation, his work on Gravity won him an Oscar while the long-shot in Children of Men is a technical masterpiece. It has been much publicised that Birdman was filmed to appear as one single shot, which for the most part is thoroughly engaging. As characters prowl the hallways of the Theatre as though they are appearing in an episode of West Wing where nobody ever stands still, the “invisible cuts” create a creeping sense of claustrophobia. Rather than just being a gimmick, the technique conveys the hustle and bustle of a busy theatre, as well as making Riggan appear like a rat trapped in a maze. It does not always work, there are times when it exhausted me as a viewer (especially when combined with the drumbeat soundtrack), and I spent some time distracted as I was looking for the cuts - perhaps that says more about me than the film however.

   Innaritu’s direction succeeds in crafting a film with a remarkable aesthetic and feel, he also manages to juggle a superb ensemble cast, however he is seemingly less assured when it comes to some of the themes and story beats of Birdman. Where the film fails for me is when it comes closer to resembling a play. While Birdman’s script makes comedic capital from poking fun at how pretentious actors and plays can be, the director seems to have missed the joke. There are visual metaphors galore that seem to be there only to provoke, rather than to demonstrate or clarify the plot. One sequence (featured in the trailer so no spoiler here) in which Riggan imagines a giant mechanical bird attacking the city, it seems like a jab aimed at Transformers-style films that substitute spectacle for story, however it weirdly kills the momentum of the film and looks for all the world like something a studio exec demanded be in the script to sell the film to a wider audience.

   When Birdman works, it soars. An engaging film that will stick with you long after viewing, even if the ending might leave you baffled. Birdman’s subtitle: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance could also describe elements of Innaritu’s direction, some of his pretentious tendencies masked by the film’s subject matter. However when Birdman keeps its feet on the ground, as a film well constructed and supremely acted, Innaritu has achieved something special.

WHO: Emma Stone. It’s Keaton’s film but she had me hooked.

WHAT: The “invisible cut” cinematography. Unlike anything else you’ll see this year.

WHY: A film that is many things; funny, tragic, arty, intelligent, above all entertaining. 

WHEN: Before Oscar night!

The Interview. A Review.

Was there any film of 2014 that got more free publicity than James Franco and Seth Rogan’s The Interview. Rightly or wrongly it was in the public eye on every news outlet, every entertainment blog, all up in arms about art and free speech - but was the film actually any good?

The plot itself is something of a gear change for the Team Apatow alumni , with Producer Aaron Rapaport (Rogen) and chat-show host Dave Skylark (Franco) leaving the safe shores of America for North Korea in order to interview Kim Jong Un. Skylark and Rapaport are contracted by the CIA to assassinate the North Korean leader in order to instigate a rebellion.

So is the film funny? Well I cannot deny I did laugh, there are a few moments of good comedy in there. The celebrity cameos, which reached nauseating levels in This is the End, are used smartly in The Interview and produce some fun moments that add to the film rather than distract. The drug references which usually permeate Team Apatow films are present, but are fairly brief, and seem to be there mainly as a comfort blanket for Rogen. The bulk of the comedy comes from Franco, as larger than life and charismatic Dave Skylark. His sense of fun is infectious and he makes good company, and if ever a live action version of spy-spoof Archer is in the works - Franco would make a good candidate. Sadly underused is the excellent Lizzy Caplan, her role as a top CIA agent had potential - it may have been a more interesting film if she had accompanied Franco instead of Rogen. Rogen is convincing enough as frazzled producer Aaron, and it comes as no surprise that he has good chemistry with Franco, the pair have good instincts and timing when it comes to some of the comedy set pieces. Rogen is however let down by a script that more or less has him playing Seth Rogen, his character arc has him playing sidekick to James Franco while being unlucky in love. 

Comedy is of course subjective, and some of the jokes in The Interview were not at all to my taste, some just were too obvious, some sexist, some just crass. What about the main joke, the one that seems to have caused so much fuss? Well first of all, it is a joke you can see coming a mile off, and it is a joke that has been done better elsewhere. Poking fun at dictators is fun, its just that South Park already did it with Saddam, and Chaplin already did it to Hitler, so in terms of shock value the portrayal of Kim Jong Un has little to offer. Randall Park certainly has some fun as the North Korean leader, but he never really feels dangerous. Too have caused so much controversy, The Interview’s portrayal of Kim is actually rather tame and even goes some way to humanising him. It would have been refreshing for the film to have actually earned its notoriety by going the whole hog and being really vicious, it might not have been the most sophisticated joke in the world but at least it would be different. 

Can The Interview be a turning point? Not because of the controversy but because it represents the zenith of this type of comedy. It has man-child bromance, drug references, casual sexism, and improv comedy down to a streamlined art. As Paul Rudd suits up as Ant-Man, as Jonah Hill impresses in Moneyball, and Ben Stiller goes full auteur on Walter Mitty, the boys club of comedy is growing up. Franco and Rogen are clearly capable actors, and have proven themselves adept at navigating the hollywood machine, I would like to see them really challenge themselves. This is not to say that comedy ins’t challenging, its probably one of the most difficulties genres to succeed in, its just that every time someone asks me what I thought of The Interview I find myself replying that “its exactly what you’d expect”, I would love it if next time I see a Seth Rogen film I am genuinely surprised. 

The Interview has incredibly ended up the subject of a great deal of political discussion, however it is the gender politics of the film that really require some discussion. The sad thing is I wasn’t sure after watching the film whether it had been sexist or not, I had to ask my girlfriend who pointed out that the women in the film really had little to do other than serve as eye candy, and this is in spite of the fact that the two female leads are a top CIA agent and the head of the North Korean media. The Interview is by no means the main offender when it comes to sexism in films, but it is worth pointing out that I had no expectation going in that it would have an attitude of equality towards its female characters, and I had to have it explained to me afterwards. I was embarrassed, which is a good thing and certainly food for thought. In defence of the film’s gender politics (a sentence even as I type I feel wholly ill-equipped to finish) Diana Bang’s character Sook is given something of a character arc, however she simply does not have enough screen time for the reveal to feel earned, no matter how capable of an actress she is. Lizzy Caplan plays Agent Lacey, as she attempts to use her sexuality to convince Franco to join the CIA plot. Rogen points out that she is ‘honey-potting’ Franco, to which Franco replies ‘That is sexist - it’s 2014 and women can be smart now’. I laughed. And maybe I’m overanalysing here but laughing at that joke felt justified, as though we could laugh at how silly the bad old days were when we were sexist, but then Caplan is sidelined for the rest of the film, so in 2014 were we really doing that much better? I can’t help but think the filmmakers shot themselves in the foot because Caplan is a great screen presence and she was under-utilised, they could have mined greater comedic depths by having a more gender balanced script but they missed out on the opportunity.  

Judging the film on its own terms, The Interview was a perfectly serviceable entry into the cannon of Team Apatow comedies, Franco in particular is very watchable and good company. In the context of the Sony hackings, is this the film that should bring a studio to its knees? Absolutely not, if there was a Sony film really worth getting angry about it was Spiderman 3, but that’s another review. I have used the personal pronoun a lot more than I like to in reviews, in for a penny in for a pound right? I think The Interview was an okay comedy, but really it wasn’t. I think we need to expect more from comedies otherwise we will just get the same things recycled over and over and we will laugh because we’re supposed to. Franco and Rogen are smart guys, I hope they start to make smart movies, maybe then we can laugh with them instead of at them. As for the state of gender politics in movies, there’s a hell of a long way to go and there are plenty of people who could point out all the things that are done wrong a lot better than I. What I can say is that when filmmakers treat women as equals it only means good things for the film.

WHO: Franco steals the film. There’s also a puppy which convinces in its role as cute puppy.

WHAT: Probably the best use of a Katy Perry song in a film.

WHY: So you can be cool and have an opinion on the film everyone was talking about. Last year.
WHEN: It’s online, so whenever you want.

After. A Review.

Watch the film here: http://vimeo.com/115117282

There are plenty of films that deal with the outbreak of the apocalypse, with zombies being in particular vogue in recent years. It is understandable, the advent of the risen dead makes for extreme action and compelling drama - with humanity trying to save itself. But what happens when humanity fails, what happens to relationships and people when hope is lost, what happens after? This is the premise of After, the first feature length film from writer/director Chris Bone.

After drops the audience right into the middle of a wasteland that was the United Kingdom, and into the life of David Taylor - a man haunted by the horrors of the Zombie event that has devastated his world. As David struggles to find the basics he needs to survive, he seems also to grasp for the will to carry on. He is not alone for long, as he soon encounters other survivors and hoards of the undead.

It is said that in filmmaking there is never enough time, money, or light - and nowhere is this more true than at the student level. It is commendable then that director Chris Bone has crafted a film with great production value, emotion clout, and some stunning visuals. I’m sure Chris would love to have had more time, money, and light, but he has certainly achieved a great deal with limited resources. Along with Jessica Wells, Chris wrote a tight script that played to the strengths of student filmmakers, using a small number of well chosen locations (more on that later), a small cast, and a genre that audiences are familiar with - the team that created After put themselves in position to make a professional looking film. 

The script keeps dialogue to a minimum, however the cast do a good job with what is there. The banter between David (George Willis) and fellow survivor Jamie (Stephen Odubola) goes beyond cliche machismo, coming off more as forced levity from people who have obviously lost everything. This is no small achievement from cast members who look young for the roles they are playing, Willis and Odubola likely didn’t have many takes to get things right - but obviously made the most of the time they had. Benjamin Cyrus Clark brings gravitas to the role of Allen Hardy, though is perhaps short served by the story and script, I’m sure given more screen time he would have made an even more compelling and perhaps sympathetic antagonist. Shannon Alice King also is given little time to develop as a survivor David meets, her grim delivery adds to the gritty tone that Bone establishes in a scene which hammers home how cruel the world of After can be, however we are not given enough reason to shocked by her character's arc. 

After is bleak, and makes no bones about it. From the early desolate shots, to the gripping finale frame, the whole film achieves an impressive oppressive tone. One of the film’s biggest strengths is the locations; an empty church, a derelict building, an overgrown railway, all add up to a film that looks professional. These locations, coupled with imaginative cinematography, create some truly striking images that stick with the audience long after. Unfortunately there is some inconsistency, which is often a problem with student films. There are some superb shots where it is clear that time and attention has been devoted, and then there are occasions where, for whatever reason, less care has been taken. Some matched actions could have been done slightly better, some shots the focus looks a tad off, and this is no major criticism because overall the film is a visual treat, however given more time it is these small things that could have been improved on. 

Special mention must go to the soundtrack composed by Adiescar Chase. Testament to the fact that less is more, the haunting strings have shades of the excellent soundtrack for The Last of Us (an outstanding horror video game for those of you that can’t get enough living dead), perfectly complementing the stark images on screen to suck the audience into the world of After. The scene where all the elements came together for me is when David and Jamie hide under a bridge, there is no dialogue and the audience is given only a partial view of what is happening, the music rises and falls, drawing out the tension as we fear for the protagonists life. This is the greatest success of After, because in that moment I was not thinking how well done this is for a student film, I was completely engrossed, and then after I thought how some professional directors could learn from the way script, cinematography, and soundtrack complement each other in a perfect way. 

So back to time, money and light - with more of all three, After could have been improved. The climactic ending seemed as though it could have used more time, with more money it could have been given a bigger scale, and more light I’m sure would have made the director very happy. However, operating in the real world, the team behind After should be very proud of what they have produced; at its very worst it is an ambitious student film made by passionate people, but when it works, After is excellent. 

For a 30-minute film, After has given me a lot to talk about and I could go on - I could probably write 500 words about the scene with the french-window alone. Suffice it to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and it is great to see what can be achieved when someone cares enough about a project that they overcome the obvious limitations and create something that the entire cast and crew can be proud of, and should surprise and delight audiences. 

WHO: Stephen Odubola impresses, stealing our sympathy in the short time we see him.

WHAT: The bridge scene, because who needs time, money, or light when you have imagination?

WHY: Because you could do a lot worse on Netflix, it’s worth your time. 

WHEN: I’m sure you have something you should be doing right now, watch this instead.

Watch the film here: http://vimeo.com/115117282