The Personal History Of David Copperfield Cert: PG / 119 mins / Dir. Armando Iannucci / Trailer
A disclaimer. I haven't read Charles Dickens' David Copperfield. Also, I haven't watched any television, film or stage adaptations of David Copperfield. There's no agenda behind that, it's just the way these things fall. I've heard of it obviously, but the only Dickens I'm reasonably familiar with is A Christmas Carol, and even then it's only because some new adaptation is filmed almost every year. And it's not like I employ the same level of reverse-snobbery for his work as I do with Shakespeare's material.
So when I went to see Armando Iannucci's The Personal History Of David Copperfield this evening, I did so because I like its cast, I like Armando Iannucci and I trust them all to make an entertaining retooling of a thing I'm not familiar with in the slightest. This review is of the thing I just watched, not the thing I was expecting or the thing I was necessarily wanting it to be. And with all that in mind, this will either be the exactly the viewpoint you're after or the last opinion you want to read. Either way, you're very welcome...
JOLLY And what a delight it turns out to be. By definition of the material alone it's a far more jolly ride than Iannucci's previous cinematic outing, as he works Dickens' classic into a sprawling comedy of manners with tight scripting and sharp performances to match. Opening with a theatrical framing device, the whole thing has an air of knowing artifice, yet never waivers in its conviction. The film is energetic without tipping over into the chaotic, stagey without being forced. sumptuous without feeling stuffy.
Although Iannucci runs a wide social gamut of Victorian England, the grime of that era (in this story's settings) is barely present. Yet there's a detailed richness to the production design letting the audience know this is an aesthetic choice rather than a time or cost-saving measure. David Copperfield looks, and feels, gorgeous.
CHIPS
The cast are as superb as you'd hope. Dev Patel shines as always in the eponymous role, as does Jairaj Varsani as the younger Copperfield. At the film's height (and especially with Tilda Swinton involved), there's an almost Coen-esque farce going on, and it even begins to approach the claustrophobia and nightmare-logic of Aronofsky's mother! as reality becomes blurred and we're once again reminded of the narrated performance structure.
David Copperfield is a whistle-stop tour of a big-old book, and the two-hour runtime feels optimistically cramped in some places, while there are entire sections of the hero's life that would clearly benefit from a full, serialised adaptation for a more emotional connection. I'm reliably informed that some key story-elements have been altered here, although as this is the director's re-imagining of the saga, that's absolutely permissible*1. That Iannucci keeps masterful control of the whole thing is a credit to his dedication and enthusiasm for the source-text.
YSCIENCETHEATER3000 This is a timely companion-piece with Greta Gerwig's Little Women, both stylised adaptations of stories from the mid 1800s which are just as engaging for audiences today. Gerwig's film has more to say of course, but both channel the stunning vision of their writer/directors.
David Copperfield is snappy, stylised and consistently funny. But it's also a bit of a confection, almost a curiosity, and despite its period-setting this version won't be for everybody. Which is probably a large part of why I enjoyed it so much.
.
If it's your bag, certainly.
It is.
This should certainly be near the top of everyone's CVs for the foreseeable future.
*1 More 'strict' adaptations of David Copperfield already exist and will no doubt be made in the future. Think of this as the Dickensian equivalent of Cumberbatch's 'accompaniment' Sherlock Holmes, rather than Jeremy Brett's more canonical interpretation (even though this version of Copperfield is still set in its original time period). [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Everyone's favourite impeccably mannered Peruvian is back, in a follow-up adventure to his 2014 debut, this time on a quest to by beloved Aunt Lucy a vintage pop-up book of London for her birthday. But when a washed-up actor steals the antique, framing Paddington as the culprit, the bear finds himself in prison and has to clear his name.
Ben Wishaw's voice-work for the title role is seamless and utterly delightful once again, but director Paul King conjures standout performances from Hugh Grant as unstable narcissistic thespian Phoenix Buchanan, and Brendan Gleeson as impatient incarcerated chef Knuckles McGinty. Grant is in full comedic flow, happy to embrace the role and poke gentle fun at his own career (indeed, profession), whereas Gleeson succeeds by playing his part completely straight, as if he were acting opposite a human rather than a CGI bear. To a slightly lesser degree, the entire cast*1 do this of course. Indeed, like last time, the genius-stroke of the film is that everyone treats Paddington as a three-dimensional character (whether they're 'on his side' or not), rather than being freaked out by an actual talking bear*2. It's this sincerity which is passed down to the audience, and the central character becomes inherently believable.
Paddington 2 is a fantastic, fun adventure; but it's predecessor was more than that. The sequel's story itself is a little more pedestrian and doesn't carry the same social or emotional weight as the first movie (Peter Capaldi's reprise in particular feels like a tacked-on callback, and some of the first-act incidental scripting is nothing short of cringeworthy for a film that's so naturalistic everywhere else). While there are moments of brilliance in the film, these come more from setpieces and comic timing than The Message. But the heart of the film is still a young person who manages to find the good in almost everyone, a valuable example for audiences of all ages.
Paddington is the bear we need, even if he's the one we probably don't deserve...
*1 A roster which is, it really must be noted, absolute textbook Nina Gold casting, with the notable omission of one Bill Nighy. So I'm just going to assume that curmudgeonly Bill absolutely hates Paddington Bear until he explicitly states otherwise. I think that's fair..? [ BACK ]
*2 And it's a credit to the finished product that I was sucked in to the point where I started picking apart the logic in the climactic train-chase. At one point, two separate steam trains are running on parallel tracks out of Paddington Station towards Bristol (leaving from different platforms), then seconds later they're on the same line (the only line, so lord knows where this stretch of track is meant to be). Who's controlling the track-points? What about all the red-signals they're clearly barging through? Skipping over the viaduct which doesn't exist on that line (that section was filmed in Yorkshire) and the fact that a high-speed chase would have to go through Reading station full of commuters at around 7am, young Paddington ends up trapped in a separated carriage underwater. We see the water level rising and the bear keeping afloat as he rises toward the roof, then the camera cuts to Sally Hawkins' Mary, who's swimming down to rescue him. Only as she approaches the padlocked carriage door with the 10" gap and a bear on the other side, the water has suddenly filled the box completely (as it would with that gap) without us seeing the air escaping before the carriage had even hit the river-bed. Will no-one think of the physics? Will no-one think of the signal controllers having the worst fucking morning of their lives as lights and klaxons go off all around them? It was then I remembered that I wasn't watching a documentary. So well done, Paddington 2. [ BACK ]
*3 And much like in the first Paddington movie (at the time, at least), isn't credited on IMDB for the appearance. Although he does at least get his writing-entry. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The UK's weather may be all over the place at the moment, but the one thing you can rely on in January is the arrival of All The Important Films, as the notoriously forgetful awards panels are presented with a fresh array of worthy contenders for middle-aged audiences who talk in the cinema. Perched in a respectable position on the ladder of consideration is Tom Hooper's new film, The Danish Girl. The (dramatised) historical biopic follows the landscape artist Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne), who was married and in his thirties when he fully realised that he should actually be a she. Einar gradually adopted the female persona of Lili Elbe, and with the support of his wife and portait artist, Gerda (Alicia Vikander), went on to became the world's first patient to undergo gender re-assignment surgery.
Now for obvious reasons the film isn't exactly a barrel of laughs, but it doesn't spend its considerable run-time wringing its hands in melodramatic despair, either. The Danish Girl is more a study of the relationship between Lili and Gerda, as it changes irreversibly with their decisions. Keeping this in mind, the two central performances are the most focused here, and while both are hauntingly powerful, Alicia Vikander is actually more interesting to watch than Eddie Redmayne. That's not to put Eddie down at all, but while Einar/Lili is introverted and conflicted by nature (captured fantastically by Redmayne), the character arc itself is still relatively linear (indeed, it's the very reason the audience are sitting there watching). Gerda, on the other hand, is far more vocal in her coping mechanisms while being equally conflicted, and there's a level of unpredictability which allows Vikander to finally show off her Actual Acting Chops.
Away from the main duo however, Tom Hooper's direction looks a little more slack. Although the costumes and sets reflect 1920s Europe authentically enough (with some carefully selected photography and framing of the exterior shots, of course), much of the supporting cast's acting - as earnest as it is - feels distinctly modern in its tone and mannerisms. I almost get the impression that as long as they learned their lines, they could interpret them how they wanted (Amber Heard's wandering accent being a prime example). The passage of time is also another occasional sticking point, as the central plot unfolds at a very measured pace anyway, then a line of exposition might tell us it's six months later with little else to indicate this than Gerda having a full exhibition's worth of portraits which we haven't seen her create.
Also on my grievance-list for the film is the amount of medical and legal detail which isn't given surrounding the surgery itself. The two part operation is explained in overview (and obviously we don't need detail there), but there's no mention of how Lili is going to become legally female in a society in which most of the medical profession wants her to be institutionalised as gay, schizophrenic or both. And that's without mentioning the a moment late in the film where the question is raised over whether Lili will be able to have children once her treatment is complete. "Oh... I don't know", she replies wistfully, giving the impression that she's asked precisely no questions of her surgeon prior to undergoing a world-first, largely experimental procedure, which would be a bit like getting a builder to knock you up a house without knowing how many bathrooms there'll be.
But as I said, that's not what the film's about; The Danish Girl is really a relationship-study, and a very good one at that. It was never going to be easy to make a film about such a complex subject, but for all my perceived gripes, it isn't simplistic or patronising.
Although I am deducting a point for the ham-fistedness of that final scene, yes ;)
The Theory of Everything (although I think that was a better film), or maybe The Railway Man.
Only if you're desperate to see it soon.
The Danish Girl is more of a Sunday night DVD.
I think it achieves some of it, brilliantly. Other areas need a more focused touch.
In Alicia Vikander's case, this should be at the top of her CV, yes.
Probably not.
There isn't.
Level 1: The Danish Girl stars Pip 'Kaplan' Torrens as well as Miltos 'Un-named (as yet) bar patron' Yerolemou from off of The Force Awakens.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Ah, the good old Secret Screening, where a packed auditorium eagerly await the fêted arrival of the BBFC card, even though they've been categorically told that the film won't be Star Wars;) And what better way to greet the cinematic step-child*1 than with a cropped picture (a 16:9 print projected onto a 2.35:1 screen at full width, meaning the film's subtitles and scene-captions were partially unreadable), and with the 3D being projected through the wrong lens, meaning double vision with or without the glasses (cue a procession of punters trotting out to the foyer for the first four minutes of the film). The 3D was fixed. The cropping wasn't. Neither of those are the director's fault of course, but it wasn't a great start and In The Heart Of The Sea needs all the help it can get…
So, Ron Howard and Chris Hemsworth have teamed up again to make the prequel to Rush, in which James Hunt is racing speedboats instead of cars, except that speedboats hadn't been invented yet so he uses a pirate-ship, and then his crew has a fight with a sea-monster, except they use a big angry whale because Cthulhus hadn't been invented yet, and then they get stranded in a dinghy and there are no more chases or monsters and the movie ends with an internal audit.
Now, this film isn't really aimed at me. The 'true story' behind the novel Moby Dick may well be a tale worth telling, but in all seriousness I think it's more suited to a semi-dramatised documentary, at most. Despite my local's best efforts to the contrary, the 3D in the movie is very active, adding a great sense of depth to the mid-range and tracking shots. However, it's also used heavily in the close-ups and hand-held 'action' sequences, where it becomes more distracting than immersive. The cinematography's beautiful though, with many of the seascapes looking like the real-life iterations of a Turner painting.
On a less technical level, the acting's as patchy as some of the voicework. I do love a good Massachusetts accent; I only wish this film's cast did, too. And there's a surprising amount of ham for a film about a whale, with Hemsworth going full pantomime on several occasions. The larger problem is that I didn't particularly like the film's characters to begin with, and that's before we see them performing the routine actions of a whaling fleet. While these scenes are a moral turning point for the story, it still gave me no great joy to see the crew's subsequent undoing, either. And while I know you can't accurately judge the actions of the past by the morality of the present, am I really supposed to be impressed that a professional whale-murderer develops a conscience about telling fibs to his boss?
Short version: In The Heart Of The Sea is like Life Of Pi, but with Thor and Spider-Man deciding who they're going to eat next.
Look, how can I possibly be expected to concentrate on a film which isn't Star Wars, this week?
I have no idea. Probably? If you like watching whales being killed?
I should imagine a rental will do you.
I'd say not.
I have no idea.
Probably not.
Not that I heard.
The film stars Benjamin Walker, who was cast as a young Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson (and rightly so, the likeness is great) in 2004's Kinsey.
*1 Oh, don't get all upset if you have step-children; you know what I meant.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Spectre (NO PLOT-SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 148 mins / Dir. Sam Mendes / Trailer
Right, I'll keep this short. Just got in from seeing Bond 24*1 and wanted to review it while it's fresh. Unfortunately, I can't talk about any of what's on my mind without wading into spoiler-territory. Hit me up in this thread on the Facebook page if you want to paddle in those waters. In the meanwhile…
Yes, the much-anticipated Spectre finally hits our screens three years after Skyfall, headed once again by director Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig as everyone's favourite craggy-faced governmental hit-man. As Mendes' second Bond-outing and Craig's fourth, expectations are running understandably high, especially as the story follows the ongoing thread surrounding MI5 and its place in the global security chain. But chess-metaphors abound as shadowy forces move behind the scenes, and James Bond discovers his nemesis.
To be honest, it's an odd fish of a movie which has been undermined by its own hype. Thoroughly acceptable (indeed fantastic in many places), but capable of much more depth which it squanders lieu of car/boat/plane chases and a largely unconvincing central relationship between Bond and Dr Madeleine Swann (and that's largely down to her under-developed character). Monica Bellucci is underused, Dave Bautista is underused, and although Christoph Waltz gets his moment in the spotlight, he's seriously underused. All of this wouldn't be a problem if there was more going on at the Bond-end of things, but compared to his shellshocked, self-doubting character in Skyfall, James is running on autopilot a little here.
But it's still one hell of an autopilot, of course. Ben Whishaw's Q is a welcome low-key touch to the film, as it Ralph Fiennes' M (as he deftly steals some of the best lines). The film's about half an hour too long, the script is occasionally over-written, as is the action, yet all of this isn't a drawback. In fact, it's not really until you get outside of the cinema that you start thinking about all the things you didn't get.
But enough of my moaning. Spectre is very, very good at being a James Bond film, and that's what's important. Of course it could be more, and many might feel it should be more. But let's not over-analyse what is a proudly mainstream action-thriller and a British institution in its own right.
…right?
It is, but probably just the once.
Well obviously you're going to buy it; it has to go with the others, doesn't it?
Sadly not.
I think Spectre achieves what Spectre sets out to do, but that's not what Skyfall had lined up for it.
Not particularly.
There isn't.
The latest Bond installment features Mr Mark Preston as an un-named Spectre-agent, who also appears as an un-named Stormtrooper in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and as an un-named stormtrooper (presumably a different one) in Star Wars: Rogue One.
It may be an 'extra' role, but fair fucking play to the guy :)
*1 Sounds like the world's most exciting news-channel; it's actually just real-time footage of glue drying. Sorry.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A disclaimer. I haven't read Charles Dickens' David Copperfield. Also, I haven't watched any television, film or stage adaptations of David Copperfield. There's no agenda behind that, it's just the way these things fall. I've heard of it obviously, but the only Dickens I'm reasonably familiar with is A Christmas Carol, and even then it's only because some new adaptation is filmed almost every year. And it's not like I employ the same level of reverse-snobbery for his work as I do with Shakespeare's material.
