Films for Recession - Part 5: Waiting for Guffman

Waiting for Guffman (1996)

After Alistair Darling delivered the most sombre budget for some decades, and with unmployement now well over the two million mark, taking heed from those who believe in themselves against all odds is perhaps the only way out of this slump. With its name no doubt lifted from Samuel Beckett's timeless tale of modern despair, Waiting for Guffman is a film to both laugh at, and take heart from. Heralded as one of the greats in the mockumenatry genre, this late '90's film hits the same buttons now as it did then. Writer/director Christopher Guest invites viewers into a world both wierd and hilarious, yet one which somehow makes perfect sense on the screen.

Meet Corky, (Guest) a Broadway has-been now producing plays in the small town of Blaine, Missouri. When Corky puts on a show celebrating the towns hundredth year, and invites a Broadway scout to see the production, the talent both infront and behind the scenes spot a chance for stardom. For Corky, it could mean a return to the big time, if only those damn councillors would give them a bit of extra funding to really give the show a bang. For the others, including dentist Dr. Pearl (Eugene Levy) and fast food worker Libby Mae Brown (Parker Posey), it is a opportunity to showcase their talents and shoot for the stars.



Of course the joke in Waiting for Guffman, is that the cast really aren't particularly talented at all. Corky's pigheadedness is only slightly outweighed by his enthusiasm and it is quick to see why he didn't survive long on Broadway. His illogical stubborness and camp outbursts are frequent, and will have you laughing out loud. Corky's cast are eager, willing and kind hearted folk, yet find that they too succumb to the pressure of anticipating the visiting Guffman. The comedy comes not only from Guest's witty dialogue, but in the dead pan delivery of a superb ensemble cast. Look out for a great comedic duet between Catherine O'Hara and Fred Willard, who see themselves as the most seasoned performers in the troupe, and smugly flout terms like 'strike the set' in order to impress. The anticipation of Guffman's arrival serves well in driving the film along, but it is the warmth and camaraderie of the cast members that really lifts the piece.

From the writer of mockumentary cult classic This Is Spinal Tap (1984), the films comic credentials are clear, and Guest has followed on from this with Best in Show (2000) and For Your Consideration (2006), which are of a similar ilk. Although Waiting for Guffman is not for everyone, and indeed will be especially amusing for fans of the theatre, it is film that will sustain your attention and is certainly one for a rainy day in April.

London in Film - Part 4: Croupier

Croupier (1998)

Although planting ones self in front of a roulette wheel in a London casino might seem like a step too far for many hard up Londoners, it is a reality for our cash strapped protagonist in Mike Hodges' Croupier. Known to many as the film which may or may not have launched the career of Clive Owen, Croupier tells the story of novelist Jack, who in order to make ends meet whilst breaking through his writers block, takes a job as a croupier in an underground London casino. It is when the casino begins to unearth some of Jack's artistic creativity however, that his obsession with the gaming table leads him to blur the real world with the fictional world.

Jack swiftly begins to lead a double life, as both casino employee and fictional character of his next novel 'I, Croupier'. The script explores both the mundanity and decadence of modern London, and its ability to leave its citizens feeling helpless, ostracized and bemused with the noise and stress of everyday life. It also illustrates the lengths that a writer will go to excerise their imagination and immerse themselves in a character. Sometimes it is only to further a plot, and at the expense of real and meaninful interaction. When Jack meets casino regular Jani (Alex Kingston) and is asked to take part in an inside robbery, his fictional character is offered a chance to thrive, whilst the ethics of the real croupier are all but forgotten.


Croupier is certainly a nice bookend for veteran director Mike Hodges, who directed Michael Caine in Brit classic Get Carter at the early stages of his career back in 1971. The script rasies interesting questions over the mindset of a novelist, and certainly approaches the themes of solitude and disconnection in an original form. Some would no doubt argue that the screenplay is not overly concerned with the practice of writing at all. It may indeed be more synonomous with the pressures of living in a city like London, working long unsociable hours and rarely seeing the ones you love, whilst trying to make some extra money to get by. The spartan and utilitarian feel of the surroundings take away from the warmth that London often attains in romantic comedies, the city feels cold, unfriendly and sinister, and shows us something far more unsettling than plain old writers block.

Hype: The Soloist

Its UK release may still be a while away, but Joe Wright's latest film, The Soloist, is already setting tongues wagging. The British director of the moment, Wright already has Oscar nominations for Atonement and Pride and Prejudice under his belt, as he tackles a slightly different genre this time around. Robert Downey Jr stars as Lopez, an LA Times journalist who after a chance encounter with homeless musician Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx), takes a more than just passing interest in the former Juilliard student who now sleeps rough in LA's Skid Row district.

Initially deciding to write a column about this troubled yet brilliantly gifted musician, Lopez's journalistic intrigue turns what begins as a work project, into a close and meaningful friendship that will undoubtedly put the lives of both men to the test. The film is based on the novel by the real Steve Lopez, detailing his relationship with a deeply talented yet misguided man he meets on the backstreets of Los Angeles. Any believer in the power of music to heal and bring hope will be eagerly anticipating The Soloist, which promises to display two actors at the top of their game, and a director surely just warming up.

London In Film - Part 3: Closer (to the real city)

Closer (2004)

When the time came for Patrick Marber to adapt his highly successful broadway play for the big screen, there were no doubt many in the film community that doubted the film version would live up to the brilliance of its predecessor. Indeed, when Closer was originally performed in 1997, well before the millenium, and proliferation of the internet, it was something of a spectacle that only the stage could truly accomodate. Take, for example, the scene with the internet chat room, when Dan tricks Larry into meeting Anna at the London Aquarium. There was no way that this cleverly crafted theatrical scene, brought to life by some very creative set designers, could have the same cringeworthy feel on film? Only it did; except this time Dan, originally played on stage by Clive Owen, is portrayed by Jude Law, and Larry the doctor is Mr. Owen, bravely switching the role that he played to such aclaim on Broadway. The gamble paid off on both accounts; Clive Owen is simply brilliant; sardonic and self deprocating to devastating effect, and the film, well, it is a well measured adaptation of the play and, indeed, of London. That in itself should have been victory enough.

The story surrounds obituary writer Dan (Jude Law), who is dating the enigmatic Alice (Natalie Portman), yet cannot contain his feelings for Anna (Julia Roberts) a successful photographer who is photographing Dan for a book he is publishing. When Anna rejects Dan's advances, Dan decides to take his revenge by sneakily setting her up on a date with Larry (Clive Owen), a man (actually a doctor) he meets in an internet sex chatroom. Dan's luck turns even worse when Larry and Anna hit it off and begin seeing each other. It is best to stop here, for the strength of the piece lies not only in the convoluted and well crafted nature of the characters relationships, but in the way that they converse and interact throughout the piece.

I have rarely read a script where the characters venomous words mean so much, and resonate so deeply. There is nothing overly stylised or cheap about the language Marber uses, and it is quite faithfully reflected from the source material to the script. It is not pretentious, but infact utterly fitting for such disfunctional relationships. Those who feel that this might be just another facet of the 'cool Britannia' mid-90's British theatre movement, are wrong. The vernacular is shocking at times, but not as controversial as some of the same work produced in that period (Mark Ravenhill a la Shopping and Fucking springs to mind). This is perhaps because the balance is so neatly struck between raw physical emotion, and vicious undiluted verbal rebuttals (usually from Owen). The words simply ring true.

Director Mike Nichols, no stranger to adapting hit plays (The Birdcage), reimangines the story in as sincere a tone as you could hope for. The cinematography showcases the beauty of London's cultural corners, from the Theatre Royal Drury Lane to the National Portrait Gallery and, for once, the inside of a red bus, not just the shape of one truddling on past. The city feels real in Closer, and is not just a two dimensional tableau, as we've seen so often before. Indeed, in one of the films finer vignettes, responding to Dan's observation that the heart is not just a diagram, Larry angrily rebuts, "have you ever seen the human heart?; it looks like a fist wrapped in blood". Not only do we discover this truth, but also a side of London that is much too often left buffed and polished.

Films for recession - Part 4: Risky Business

Risky Business (1983)

Well, the long awaited G20 summit in London has come and gone. The red carpet outside Downing Street has been removed, President Obama is in Turkey telling them that he supports their accession to the European Union (and that America is not against Islam), and the news just keeps on churning out the analysis. Like the endless Friends re-runs on TV, and in the words of the great Pierre Bourdieu, the news will continue to comment, re-comment, analyse and re-analyse that which has come and gone. Considering I still watch the Friends re-runs, I'm not in a position to criticise.

All this talk of money however, wherever it's actually going, (the IMF, stimulus packages, MP's second home allowances) has got me thinking about the all mighty buck in relation to the big screen. Those movies where the pursuit of that all important cash prize is what drives the pace forward and sucks us in like the money hungry monsters we are (I speak for myself). Yes, I suppose last years Slumdog Millionaire did reinvigorate this sub-sub-genre with some aplomb, but what about those other greats? Those flicks where our plucky protagonists create money from diddley squat; in this economic climate its about time we started watching and taking notes.

Yes there is the Michael Douglas classic Wall Street, a film that made us all aware of the dangers (and impeccable dress sense) of hedge fund managers, as if we needed any further reminding right now. It's certainly a risky business, and talking of risky business (excuse the seguey)wasnt that the title of the film that launched the career of Tom Cruise? Now if there's a movie about getting yourself into deep mud, and finding a way to climb out of it (with a little help from your friends)this is surely it. When good mannered high school student Joel Gooodson's (Cruise) parents go away for the weekend, he is persuaded by close friend Miles (Curtis Armstrong) to stop worrying about his Ivy league future and have a little fun.

When the boys decide to call a prostitute, they get far more than what they bargained for when a transvestite named Jackie appears at the door. After the confusion has passed, good natured Jackie gives Joel the number of a girl that he assures Joel he will really like. Enter Rebecca De Mornay's Lana, who gives Joel everything that he's ever dreamed of, and then asks for $300 in return. Before Joel has a chance to pay her back however, Lana leaves, taking with her the Goodson family's priceless Steuben Glass egg. Add to the mix a wrecked Porshe, an angry pimp (played by long time scene stealer Joe Pantoliano) and an ingenious idea for making some desperately needed money, this is truly one to savour.

Cruise's character proves that with a little determination, a whole host of problems (including one very irritated Princeton rep) can be solved. This is undoubtedly one for the ages, and has somehow never quite seemed so pertinent.

London in Film - Part 2: red phone boxes, black cabs

About a Boy (2002)

On the occassions that I watch a film set in London, and spot a street that I often walk down or landmark that I pass on my daily travels, I cant help but feel a certain sense of satisfaction. London is an incredibly beautiful, diverse, weird and wonderful city that I don't see enough of on the big screen. I mean that literally, because although a film might be set in London, like Notting Hill or Match Point for example, there are only certain parts of the city that ever make it to the final cut. Hell, there are probably only ever parts of the city that are part of the script. Scouted out because they are squeaky clean, polished, instantly recognizable, and quintessentially 'London'. A tourists London that is. I rarely ever see the backstreets, the grime, the jarring paradox of a five million pound edwardian townhouse standing adjascent from an ominous looking council estate. Or it might be a semi detached house, facing a not so ominous looking council estate. For a city that accomodates more nationalities than any other in the world, I rarely see a representative of these great nations in films set in this great city.

Richard Curtis has long been criticised for supposedly pandering to American audiences, who are already predisposed to the awkward Britishness of Hugh Grant, rather than showing them a real cross section of London life. I'm not criticizing his films, like Four Weddings for example, which is one of my favourites of this sub-genre; if your film concerns the trials and tribulations of the upper middle classes then I don't expect to see the Mile End Road or backstreets of Harlesden all that often. They just wont live there, or visit on their daily travels.



There needs to be, however, a sense that other avenues are being explored in this genre and we do, occassionally, see that. In 2002's About a Boy, starring a very different Hugh Grant than the one we're accustomed to, and a young Nicholas Hoult (of Skins fame) it takes the work of two American directors, namely Chris and Paul Weitz, to bring this London to life, and reinvigorate the genre. In About a Boy, Hugh Grant plays Will, a freewheeling self made millionaire batchelor, who spends his days watching TV, playing pool, getting his haircut and going to fancy restaurants.

When Will begins attending single parents meetings (he has only an imaginary son) he meets Marcus, Nicholas Hoult's gregarious and amiable young shoolboy and the two soon become close friends. When Marcus's mother learns about this new friendship however, she is less than impressed, and wants quickly to get to the bottom of this dynamic. What makes this film so interesting, apart form solid performances from our leading characters, and great a great supporting turn from Toni Colllette as Marcus's emotionally worn down mother, is the way that London is depicted. Will may be a batchelor with a fancy London pad, but he doesn't live in High Street Kensington or Holland Park, but in Islington, one of London most psychogeographically fascinating boroughs.

Whereas streets like Upper Street (and the surrounding roads) are some of the most exclusive in town, Islington has some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in London. Being on the periphary of the city also adds another dimension; we see the Clerkenwell Road, alive with the hustle and bustle of many different London worlds colliding. There is a great sense of irony in the narrative, Will sees his life as a kind of self indulgeant Truman show ("I am the main character or this story, others may come and go but I am always here"), although unlike Truman, his essentially selfish existence does little to benefit the lives of others, that is until, however, he meets Marcus and learns that the daily trivialities of life are the things he has been missing out on. It is as refreshing to see another side of Hugh Grant, as it is to see another side of London; Grant is at times evasive, dissmissive and arrogant, something that some audiences will find difficult to get used to. His critics will have to concede that he does, indeed, have range. Most importantly though, this is a solid comedy drama, set on these shores, that seems to avoid the usual depiction of London attributed to films of a similar plotline, and was certainly one of the hidden gems of 2002.

Hype: Another violent British film?

Bronson (2009)

If Mike Leigh's Happy go Lucky taught us anything about the state of our film industry here in Britain, or lack of it as some might argue, it's that not all of our filmmakers are nihilists or wannabe Guy Ritchies. I cant help but feel often that our industry is a certain kind of dichotomy. One the one hand we seem to produce the ultra-violent gangsta film (Gangster No.1, Lock Stock, Snatch, Layer Cake, Sexy Beast), and on the other the light fluffy romantic comedy/drama, that strives to educate the world of the overwhelming charm of 'Britishness', (Keeping Mum, Love Actually, and so forth) as if they could care any less. There are also of course, the great period dramas produced in Britain, although I feel that these are very much part of our heritage, and will always be around one way or another.

As a film lover, and a fan too of this great nation, I would like to see our producers and directors put their funding to good use and make films with a sense of integrity and originality. As long as this criteria is followed, I can forgive any amount of violence (up to a point obviously) and simply admire the artistry. When a project recieves funding from the UK film council, which is now the go to body for funding in the UK, I expect to watch a film that will either enrich our lives with the high calibur of the storytelling and performances on screen, or dazzle us with its inventiveness and sheer scope. I dont want to watch films that revel in idealised and glamourised violence, whilst masquerading as cutting edge, like Creep, or insensitively approach very serious issues, like the recent Three and Out. Violence for the sake of violence is no more than a cheap thrill, an easy plot device and frankly far too hackneyed in our industry.

There are great pioneers within our industry that should be heralded; Stephen Frears and Michael Winterbottom are two directors that don't seem to want to pursue stereotypes, instead pushing the industry forward with their integrity and courage. This country does produce beautiful, intricate and above all entertaining period dramas, (most of which the BBC are behind) like The Edge of Love,Pride and Prejudice, Atonement and this months The Young Victoria. This surely is in no small part due to a wealth of talent that exists, and has no doubt long existed in this country; James McAvoy, Emily Blunt and Michael Sheen are just a hand full of actors that prove this point. The problem lies in the chances that we take; the fact is that we can only produce a certain number of films from these shores each year, so perhaps the impatus lies with the UK film council, funded not exclusively, but largely, from lottery money, to consider carefully what projects they are contributing funds towards. Film Four struck gold with Slumdog Millionaire by helping to fund an ambitious British film set in the streets of Mumbai; at the time this must have seemed a great risk.

If risks weren't taken in the past then cinematic epics, like the multiple Oscar winner The English Patient might never have been made. If we are to return to the era of the 1980's when production companies like Goldcrest Films were producing features such as Gandhi and The Killing Fields, then creative talent in this country needs to be given a chance to develop and diversify. More emphasis has to be put on creativity and less on formula. Questions have arisen on whether or not we needed a film about Charles Bronson, and was it ethical to spend lottery money to bring it to the big screen. The answer lies in how the character is handled, and whether the ends do in this instance justify the means. Will it be an admirable piece of art, or an angry crowd pleaser? The jury is still out.