Okay, usual rules apply: I'm not a theatre critic*1, so I can only really review what's put in front of me with a limited comparative range.
National Theatre Live brings us the full (ie three and a half hour) version of Bernard Shaw's thought-provoking comedy, Man And Superman, broadcast live from London's South Bank. With only a limited forearming, I have to say I enjoyed this very much, and without having seen a period-version of the 1903 play, the modern setting used for this adaptation is seamless, and it's a testament to the writing that it doesn't feel like it's over a century old (there are telltale tweaks here and there, but for the most part it's essentially timeless; or certainly not dependent on its temporal setting).
Ralph Fiennes is absolutely on fire in the central role, of course, even if he quite often seems to be channelling his best Leonard Rossiter. Indira Varma, Nicholas le Provost and Tim McMullan are also fantastic, almost bursting out from Fiennes' shadow until he opens his mouth and covers them again. That's no reflection on Ralph, but this really is his play. There's some slight overacting from time to time, including borderline shouting at close range and performers looking around the audience when talking to other characters. I suppose this is standard (indeed, expected) for a theatrical production, but it seems more noticeable when you're watching it in a cinema. It never derails things, but you will be aware of it.
Fiennes' dual characters of Jack Tanner and Don Juan bring a wonderful interpretation of Shaw's mixture of idealism, misguided assumption and quest to discover spiritual and moral truth. With his performance in particular, it's important to remember not to conflate the opinions of a character with those of the author. The behaviour and attitudes in the play are supposed to ask questions, not answer them*2. The piece's longstanding 'optional' segment, Act 3, or Don Juan in Hell, is a lengthy debate on the nature of morality. Independent from the overall story structure, it's actually far wittier than the rest of the play, and is arguably more interesting, too. The philosophical elements of the play in its entirety seem to work better than the humourous ones. They certainly seem more relevant, at any rate. In fact, I think I understood the meaning of the philosophy more than I did that of the narrative. Which felt slightly awkward.
Three and a half hours may seem like a long time, but it soon whizzes by as Shaw's play has no downtime, and the cast's performance of it is spellbinding. The twenty minute interval was punctuated in the cinema broadcast by a featurette including an interview with director Simon Godwin. This was a particularly nice touch for those of us not having to queue for the toilets, and I hope it's something that National Theatre Live will continue in other shows.
All in all: quite marvellous, but requires further reading. I definitely get the impression I'd have gotten more out of Man And Superman if I'd been familiar with earlier versions. Because it's difficult to fully appreciate perfection when that's all you're given…
If you get the chance to see it either live or broadcast to your local: do so, yes..
The performance requires constant concentration, so a dedicated sit-down is needed, be that rental or to-buy when it becomes available.
Despite a touch of pantomiming, the principal cast are on fine form here, yes.
I think so, but any doubt is on my part, not that of the cast and crew.
Nope.
Nope.
Ralph Fiennes starred as Hades in 2012's Wrath Of The Titans, a movie which also featured Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.
*1 Although some would add that I'm barely a film critic either; a remark with which I'd be inclined to agree - I'm a film reviewer. Massive difference, I assure you.
*2 And there's me lecturing you on how to enjoy theatre. Yeah. Although the point should stand for all writing, be it theatre, film, TV or literature. That said, sometimes an unbearable character is the mark of an unlikeable writer. Ted 2 comes out later this year...
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.
2015! Considering that this mind-and-morality bending thriller doesn't feature Morgan Freeman as a scientist who seems to know nothing about science, Ex Machina has already won on points before the opening titles are over…
A 26yr old coder named Caleb working for a multi-national search engine company, wins an exployee-exclusive competition to spend a week with his reclusive genius boss, Nathan, at his remote home/laboratory. Once there, Caleb finds he's been specially selected to help run a series of tests on a groundbreaking new AI platform, Ava; the philosophical problem arises at where to draw the line between advanced artificial intelligence and bonafide sentience…
So, given that movies based on advanced/theoretical science can often 'slip the lead' of their writers and go tearing around the park out of control, it's a relief that Ex Machina is quite compactly told. The concept for the film is efficient enough that it never really needs to stray far from its own path (usual thriller rules apply here: second-guess plot developments at the peril of your own subsequent disappointment), and the intrigue surrounding Ava's personality is relatively short-lived as she has so much screen-time that it quickly becomes apparent exactly how advanced she is.
Far more interesting are the central performances. Domnhall Gleeson is pretty much the emotional-introvert he played in About Time, although the persona works every bit as well here, too. Oscar Isaac puts in a good (if intentionally unlikable, so good) turn as a genius corporate megalomaniac. But it's really Alicia Vikander who steals the show as Ava (with some not inconsiderable support from Sonoya Mizuno), the simulated person that's arguably more human than anyone else in the film. Set in a mountain hideaway with a primary cast of four characters, the claustrophobia you'd expect never quite closes in, although that doesn't always work in the film's favour.
My only real gripe is that the films of this ilk often leave the viewer with points for an expanded discussion or further reading on its themes, whereas Ex Machina seems quite happy to spend more time answering questions than it does asking them. It's certainly true that the performances are more complex than the story. Either way, I still loved it and another viewing is called for in short order.
Part satire, part thought-experiment*1, Ex Machina is a thematic re-tooling of both Blade Runner and Prometheus. If I was Ridley Scott, I'd be considering my next two sci-fi sequels very carefully indeed…
Oh, and how are you pronouncing this? I've been saying Ex Machina, but I've heard it said Ex Machina. It's like The Desolation of Smaug all over again…
If philosophical sci-fi's your thing, yes .
Rent (I'm still undecided as to the mass-rewatch value).
It's certainly 'up there' for the three leads, but difficult to tell if it's their best.
It does.
No, but I'll have a lengthy list of questions for you…
There isn't.
Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac both star in this year's Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 But also part 'slightly worrying layer of misogyny' too, if I'm being entirely honest. But that's a subject which will be discussed far more thoroughly elsewhere than I can hope to achieve here, so I'll settle for at least just mentioning it.
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.
I'm not usually a one for a Tom Hanks film (as those of you who know me will attest), but even I've got to admit he does bloody well in this. Once you get past the opening half-hour or so of clunky dialogue and Too Many Ominous Signs, this is an incredibly tense thriller, with Barkhad Abdi stealing a lot of Hank's thunder as head-pirate Muse. The film is meticulous in spending enough time with the Somalian pirates that we don't just see them as anonymous bad-guys, but not so much that we begin to sympathise with them too much.
Once the main plot thread kicks into gear, the acting is solid all round, and Greengrass's direction can't be faulted. The same can't be said for the ground/sea-level camerawork, however, as it's wall-to-wall shakycam; particularly distracting in the nighttime shots where you're struggling to make out what's going on as the action gets hectic. There are some rather nice aerial shots, but ultimately they emphasise how jittery the rest of the film looks. Add to this the constant, frantic scoring in the final act and it almost seems like it's trying too hard. But in the end, it succeeds with a good heart and a couple of moments of much-welcomed dark humour from the Navy Seals.
My gripes aside, Captain Phillips is a gruelling, yet emotionally rewarding, watch. For many, the power will be in the story, so multiple viewings may not hold any appeal (so cinema then), but for those of you who want to see how a True Story™ can be told with the same pacing and tension as a fictional thriller, this will be worth several passes.
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
I think so.
The shaky-cam might make you want to see this on a small screen.
No.
Not for a while.
There isn't. Why not?
I'm not the only one who thought Bespin Cloud Car, am I?
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.
