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.

Hype: Agora

It's been a while since a sprawling, big budget historical epic hit our screens and showed us the capabilities that films have to transport us into another realm. The last great historical epic I suppose was arguably Gladiator, which undoubtedly set the bar high on building extravagant sets, mixing that with unthinkable special effects and topping it off with some of the greatest on screen performances in, well, ever. Ridley Scott has since topped this up with the Orlando Bloom vehicle, Kingdom of Heaven, which I don't believe was universally loved. Then there was Oliver Stone's Alexander, which was almost universally unloved, and then ofcourse there was the Brad Pitt Spartan epic Troy, which seemed to split people pretty much right down the middle.

It is time to rejoice however, as Alejandro Amenabar returns to English language filmmaking with the Roman-era historical epic, Agora. The story concerns the life of Hypatia of Alexandria a Greek scholar of astronomy and philosophy, played by Rachel Weisz, who comes face to face with the rise of Christianity as it sweeps the empire in the 4th Century AD. The film also stars up and coming young actor Max Minghella, (Syriana, Art School Confidential, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men) who plays Davus, her slave, who whilst falling in love with his master, is also falling for the hope offered by Christian belief.

The teaser trailer looks grand to say the least, and if we've come to expect anything from Amenabar (The Sea Inside, The Others, Abre Los Ojos) then the intricacy of the script will match the granduer of the setting with some aplomb. The release date is set for December 18th 2009, but lets hope we dont have to wait that long.

Films for recession - Part 2: Good Will Hunting

Good Will Hunting (1997)

AIG on Federal support? Icelandic banks collapsing? Collateralised Debt Obligation? You couldn't write a script this volatile. When considering the continually declining economic stability of the UK, you have to ask yourself, just what makes a really good script? Some answers are plain as day; The Truman Show, Jerry Maguire and The Insider are three that I always think of as being a great concept, that was converted into a great script. Good Will Hunting is another. Will Hunting, played by Matt Damon, is an MIT janitor who likes to solve near impossible Maths problems when no one else is around. Will is also a young man with severe emotional problems and a very bad temper. When Will gets in trouble with the law for assaulting a police officer, he is sent to prison. Help arrives, however, in the form of MIT Professor Gerald Lambeau, a magnificent Stellan Skarsgard, who recognising Will's extraordinary ability, offers him a way out.

Frankly I don't care whether or not Matt Damon and Ben Affleck actually wrote it, or if they hired Hollywood screenwriting legend William Goldman to do it for them (which I suspect probably didn't happen). The film is moving and thought provoking, Damon and Affleck's Oscar acceptance speech was even better, and they gave us some of the most quotable moments of script from any American film of that decade: "You spent $50,000 on an education you could have got for $2.50 in late charges at the public library" Will tells a male rival in a Boston bar early on.

Will Hunting is the kind of dark and intriguing protagonist that you cannot help but find fascinating. Matt Damon portrays this emotionally damaged yet mathematically gifted young man with a believable amount of bravado and self loathing. Damon's on screen relationship with Robin William's is perhaps what the film is most heralded for, yet it is his patnership with Ben Affleck that I found the most engaging and emotionally gripping facet of the script. "You're sitting on a winning lottery ticket and you're too much of a pussy to cash it in" he tells his childhood friend in one scene whilst the two take a break from work on a construction site.



Of course Robin Williams's performance as the psychiatrist that cannot bring himself to let this gifted young man fall by the wayside, was Oscar winning, and was surely deserving of this honour. His key role in what was easily one of the most acclaimed movies of that year, and arguably the decade, was surely too hard to ignore. Minnie driver was equally as key as Skylar, the girl that Will spends the film agonising over in one way or another; I haven't seen too much of Minnie Driver but a role as high profile as this one has surely stuck in peoples minds ever since. Her relationship with Will has the ability to make you both laugh heartily and cry desperately, it is surely another of the great successes of the film.

Structurally the film rarely falters, offering a healthy combination of pathos and humour that always seems to keep you on your toes; there is a memorable scene between Williams and Damon in the psychiatrists lounge when the two discuss the importance of imperfection, in specific relation to the flatulence of Williams's former spouse. All in all this is a touching drama, with an active brain and a beating heart; I guarantee you wont be able to forget about it for the rest of the evening, or possibly the next ten years.

London in Film

Breaking and Entering (2006)

Once again the director of cinematic epics like The English Patient and Cold Mountain has created a piece of cinema that is as meticulously detailed as it is grand and sweeping. In Breaking and Entering, Anthony Minghella has fused the minute, detailed and complicated nuances of his characters with the strikingly brash, gritty and uncompromising city that is London.

Our protagonist, Will, played by long time Minghella collaborator Jude Law, is a married architect who is left frustrated by a spate of robberies at his firms HQ in London's notorious Kings Cross region. One night, after another break-in, Will follows the young man behind the crime and eventually discovers that his mother is a wonderfully charming and honest Bosnian refugee by the name of Amira. His obsession to solve the mystery of the robberies, quickly turns into an obsession with Amira and an unlikely bond ensues.

Like his multiple Oscar winning The English Patient, Minghella's characters are sensitively considered and carefully constructed (the director has no wish to depict graphic sexual encounters, he is seemingly as adverse to this as filming an action sequence). Our protagonists are lent an air of grandeur through the canvas of an ever changing London; this is no mistake, the city pervades their lives in just the way a true Londoner would expect it to. The council estates of Kings Cross (actually Swiss Cottage) act as Minghella's current Sahara desert; the setting contextualises all that we see, and the story unravels from within it.

Add to this an array of wonderfully talented actors; Jude Law, Juliette Binoche, Ray Winstone and a breakthrough role for Rafi Gavron. However, as many a critic pointed out, the show is well and truly stolen by Vera Farmiga playing an almost impossibly loquacious prostitute. The first hour of the piece is without doubt the most well thought out, well paced and well delivered of any film I have seen this year year, and then, well, the tone kind of changes. This is when you are reminded that you are watching Minghellas film; he is telling the story, however effortlessly it seemed to unfold.

To say that things change is not meant as a criticism of a truly gifted storyteller (pun intended), yet one who is not unfamiliar with a degree of criticism (the casting of Matt Damon in Ripley for example) directed at his post English Patient cinema. I understand that the films idealistic conclusion did not please all, but this was a man who joked that the final scene of Cold Mountain was a silent plea to the UN, and I bet it was. The Minghella and Jude Law partnership should be the reason you love this film, but if you cant overlook the formers idealism, and the latters fame (I'm referring to a scene on top of Primrose Hill), then perhaps this isn't the one for you.

Films for recession - Part 1

After the dust has settled, and we've all finally gotten over the spectacle of Slumdog Millionaire, we're plunged back into a world of money-talk, recession, bonuses, quantative easing and financial woes from here to eternity. If the success of Slumdog taught us anything, apart from what a great film visionary Danny Boyle truly is, it's that in times of hardship, some people turn to films to lift them, to transport them from their surroundings and to restore their faith in the world we live in. Some people watch Saw 5. I suppose sometimes people turn to film to escape a personal trauma, or if you're like me, at times its just to escape the news. Press conferences with Mervyn King aren't all that bad, but by March the whole spiel is starting to get tiring. So its down to us, the Joe everybodies of this world to use this great medium for perhaps its most important purpose: to inspire us, to enrich our lives, and to drown out CNN.(just briefly)


The Cider House Rules (2000)

The Cider House Rules came on my radar back in 2000 or so, and probably only as Michael Caine was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal as the physician and secret abortionist Dr. Larch. In the story, based on the John Irving novel, Homer Wells (played by Tobey Maguire)is a young orphan who for years has been taken under the wing of physician and orphanage director Dr. Wilbur Larch. When a young couple arrive at the orphanage for an emergency abortion (yes, Dr. Larch performs those as well) Homer finds the opportunity to escape with them to their family apple farm and stand on his own to feet for the first time in his life. There, Homer learns of the trials of life outside the boundaries of the orphange, the politics of the cider house and the meaning of true responsiblity .

Its not one of those films that I suppose many people are aware of, but it is a film that drags you (kicking and screaming) into the story, and almost persuades you to go along with it. I put it in these terms as it has, ostensibly, the hallmarks of a run of the mill, polished awards season poser. In many respects I suppose it is, but it's also a sweet, charming and endearing tale of a young man who leaves home to find his way in the world, all the whilst realising that home was always where his heart was. Tobey Maguire receives his fare share of flack from critics, I dont know if its just because he was Spiderman and they weren't, or if some just have a genuine aversion to him.

I for one haven't seen him give a bad performance yet; he seems to pick roles that suit his gentle demenaour and overwhelmingly expressive countenance. The Cider House Rules isn't the kind of movie that you want to say too much about, its a solid, warm hearted, well performed drama that should be allowed to speak for itself. With a core story that is genuinely emotionally gripping, some of the more convenient plot devices can be easily forgiven. With a great supporting turn from Delroy Lindo, and an eye watering climax, its the perfect distraction for those who need an escape from the daily grind of recession Britain.

Hype: From Trainspotting to Filmspotting

For those of you that haven't yet found your perfect companion with whom to discuss the trials and tribulations of awards season, you need look no further!

Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson, the presenters of Chicago based podcast and radioshow Filmspotting are seriously in a league of there own. Some would call them movie geeks, I prefer to think of them as film aficionado's. I find myself nodding my head in agreement as I listen to this weekly podcast, where our two hosts, both highly articulate and expressive, discuss the latest offerings from the world of film.

I wouldn't recommend this podcast to those who just want know whats on at their local Vue. Our hosts are more like filmologists; they approach the study of film from a highly analytical standpoint. Needless to say, they respect the medium of film and don't seem to take their decisions lightly. I don't it mind it when people have strong opinions about film, so long as they are approaching their hypothesis from an intelligently engaged perspective. What’s that you say, Revolutionary Road was disappointing and slightly muddled? Couldn’t agree more, not that I’ve seen it yet. These guys have clearly seen alot of movies, and can argue the toss pretty well one way or the other.



This isn’t just some hour long free-for-all though, you get the feeling that the show has been very well thought out from start to finish, providing relief and balance in just the right places. Each week there is a different musical offering that accompanies the shows main segments, these are usually just bursts but nicely offset the discussion and analysis. Massacre Theatre is perhaps my favourite segment, where our hosts re-enact a scene from a popular film and invite the audience to figure out what the hell it was; its reassuring to know that some film critics don’t take themselves too seriously. The shows discussion usually drifts from current box office contenders, to independent and art house classics; by the end of a show I usually know something I didn’t know before. Listen now!

Hype: Oscars Night

Now, I’m not one to watch the Oscars for the big musical performances and glamour factor. For me its all about those special moments; like in 2001 when Steven Soderburgh won Best Director for Traffic, when most people thought that Ridley Scott had it in the bag. What about when Adrien Brody won Best Actor for The Pianist and locked lips with presenter Halle Berry? These are the moments that make the Academy Awards ceremony memorable years down the line, and perhaps it was this that was lacking last year when the ratings hit an all time low.

Although this years show went pretty much according to expectations, it was certainly an emotion filled ceremony. In especially liked it when the former winners in each acting category introduced this years nominees (Robert DeNiro introduced Sean Penn, Anthony Hopkins did the same for Brad Pitt) although some had more to say about their counterparts than others, which made the idea slightly redundant and a bit cringeworthy at times.

Arguably the most shocking occurrence of the evening was Sean Penn trumping Mickey Rourke for the Best Actor accolade. Some have said that Sean Penn’s fairly brash acceptance speech (“I know that sometimes I make it hard for people to appreciate me”) for Best Actor in Gus Van Sant’s Milk, illustrated just how incredible his transformation into Harvey Milk really was. Heath Ledger’s family accepting his posthumous Supporting Actor Oscar was touching, as was the tribute to those in the industry that left us this year, and yes, Hugh Jackman was a solid and refreshing choice as host.

Surely this is what the Oscars has to be all about, mixing it up and giving the audience some suspense to cling onto. If I think I know who’s gonna win every major award, and they aren’t for films that I’ve necessarily connected with, then I’m slightly put off watching. I think this is what happened last year, and its a major put off alright. This isn’t really something the Academy can control however, and we cant exactly claim that they’re too stuffy these days; they did after all let Chris Rock host the thing in 2005, although I don’t think he’s getting invited back anytime soon. (Remember his joke about Jude Law? Old Sean Penn did like that too much) Slumdog Millionaire won big on the night, and rightly so; this certainly was one that worldwide audiences connected with. In the words of one of its stars, Anil Kapoor, speaking to E! television’s Ryan Seacrest on the red carpet outside the Kodak theatre, “We love you India!”. Here here.

Hype: Milk

I’m not going to be completely outrageous here and suggest that Slumdog Millionaire didn’t deserve to win big this awards season, but there was one film that stood out for me more than any other this time around; Gus Van Sant’s gay rights extravaganza, Milk. This isn’t to say that Slumdog was anything less than tremendous; Danny Boyle and co get my respect just for having the audacity to film on the streets of Mumbai alone. How exactly did they do that? Navigating a film crew, actors, extras and god knows who else around one of the most densely populated cities on earth; all whilst trying to follow a script and stick to schedules? Ok, hats off. The producers pulled off something truly breathtaking, regardless of what you thought of the character relationships and narrative structure of the piece. I loved the spectacle, but I guess I’m just old fashioned, and the only thing I love more than a good show is the meat and bones of the story. My complete and utter belief and investment into the characters on screen and feeling that I am right there with them, through every battle, through the highs and the lows, right until the bitter end.



Gus Van Sants Milk has characters that I can believe in, and then some. Our protagonist was by no means portrayed as perfect, but he was someone we could learn to relate with. Here was a man, nearing 40 and at the cross roads of his life, about to make a decision that would end up affecting the history of his nation, and no doubt millions of people the world over. Its these kind of stories, grounded in real life, that are perhaps the most gripping to watch, and also the most difficult to get right. Gus Van Sant handles this man, no doubt seen as martyr to many the world over, with conviction and humility. He presents us with a protagonist that is likable and real, but never perfect. The decisions he makes are not always the best for those around him, or indeed for himself in the short term, but they end up having a place in history for all the right reasons.

Sean Penn is mesmerizing as ever; the scene where Harvey Milk realises that he has become the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States is evidence enough of his magnetic on screen presence. Penn submerges himself into this character so completely, that you forget all about the angry, brooding performances of his past in the first 10 minutes. He is Harvey Milk. His detractors who suggest that he has been hamming up his roles of late a la the great Mr. Pacino, should take note. Some commentators said that Penns brash acceptance speech at the Oscars illustrated just how nuanced and thoughtful his performance as Harvey Milk truly was; they weren’t wrong. With a supporting cast including James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Josh Brolin this is a film that draws you into the story not just on the basis of a well thought out script, but some truly memorable performances. Perhaps in a year of economic hardship and endless tales of gloom and doom, it was only a film as uplifting and hopeful as Slumdog Millionaire that could lift our spirits. In another year, Milk might have gone home with all the accolades.

Hype: Baftas Night

There was lots to be happy about at last nights BAFTA ceremony. First off, Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire, a film thats been receiving endless criticism these last couple of weeks for its apparent mistreatment of child actors, was the undisputed champion of the evening taking home the statues for direction and best film among others. This is well deserved recognition for Boyle, one of Britain’s most inventive directors, and illustrates his longevity, coming so long after his cult classics Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. The cinematography of Slumdog, which was at times both mind boggling and breathtaking, was also rewarded for its brilliance.

Talking of longevity in this industry, Mickey Rourke seemed content to put some of his many demons behind him when he picked up the award for best actor. It’s always gratifying to see an individual fulfill their true potential, especially one who has fallen from grace in an industry as unforgiving as this one. Rourke certainly deserved the award for a genuinely moving and somewhat understated performance in Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler. Other notable award winners included Wall-E for Best Animated feature, Kate Winslet for her role in Stephen Daldry’s The Reader and a well earned fellowship award for honorary brit Terry Gilliam.


Fantastic as all this was, the night surely belonged in large part to those who couldn’t be there. Heath Ledger’s win in the Best Supporting Actor category was surely the pick of the bunch for many film fans, his absence reminding us of the sadness that accompanies the loss of one so young and talented. Goldie Hawn seemed visibly moved as she announced Ledger’s success, yet these weren’t the only the only tears shed on the night. As Kate Winslet accepted her award she paid tribute to two of the producers of her film, Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, Academy Award winning directors and producing partners at Mirage Enterprises, who both passed away last year before the completion of the film. I eternally applaud Kate Winslet for shouting out these two greats during her own moment of glory, when she would have been otherwise forgiven for giving in to her own sense of achievement.

As for our host, well, Jonathan Ross did a good job Mc-ing, but there’s no doubt his detractors will have been disappointed that stoic and smooth voiced BBC stalwart Stephen Fry wasn’t there to handle the proceedings. All in all though, good job BAFTA.

Don't believe the hype, Sean Penn is still top of the heap

Every time I watch a movie with Sean Penn, he delivers a career best performance. There is usually no performance good enough, however, to overcome the power and momentum of that dreaded Oscar monster, hype. It infects me ever year and 2009 was no different. Mickey Rourke was solid and occassionally very moving as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, but some critics had me believing he was the stand out performance of the year before I'd even got past the opening credits.

Like a newspaper campaign that etches away at your subconscious, it gradually got inside my skin. I've got to start toughening up. For me it was Evan Rachel Wood's emotionally charged performance as his frustrated and destitute daughter that stole the show in The Wrestler. Where was her nomination for supporting actress? Anyway, where the Best Male category was concerened the Academy got it right on this occassion, and left the hype where it belongs...

Penn collects his Oscar, and dispenses with the usual niceties