Review: Magic in The Moonlight

Magic In The Moonlight
Cert: 12A / 98 mins / Dir. Woody Allen




Woody Allen's new film serves as the perfect lesson as to how subjective (not to mention divisive) his work can be, particularly as I wasn't overly enamoured with last year's Blue Jasmine. Set in 1928, Magic In The Moonlight sees Colin Firth star as Stanley Crawford, a rationalist debunker of parlour-occultists with a tidy sideline in stage-magic (under the disguise and pseudonym of Wei Ling Soo); essentially fooling the public with one hand whilst handing them the truth on a plate with the other. His character's justification of this is that the audiences at his shows know they're seeing illusions, whereas the mediums and spiritualists of the world are desperate to keep their fee-paying customers believing that what they're seeing is the truth. Stanley's world is gradually eased into turmoil when he is called upon to investigate the apparent skills of Sophie Baker (Emma Stone), a gifted medium and prognisticator, and he draws more and more blanks as she appears to display genuine psychic abilities. Worse still, these polar-opposites get on far, far better than either of them would have predicted…

So. I loved the film, and it's thanks in no small part to Colin Firth. His portrayal of a belligerent perfectionist is marvellous and does full justice to Woody Allen's acid script, with his facetiousness coming over in a way which even Allen himself would struggle to deliver. Sadly, Allen's direction of the British cast is nowhere near as naturalistic as his screenplay. The performers make it work, but things often feel exaggerated way past their comfortable levels. On top of this, the first act of the film in particular seems oddly rushed, full of unsmoked cigarettes and drinks set down undrunk, although Firth's finest character-building also occurs during this act.

Once the scene is set in the South of France and the story can relax to a more leisurely pace, Firth and Stone have a great, hesitant chemistry, and sharply comic turns are provided by Eileen Atkins, Hamish Linklater and Simon McBurney. While the film settles comfortably into the routine of an Art Deco inspired comedy, the main plot thread about Psychic Sophie was the hook for me, unerplayed to perfection by Stone, who seems oddly at home in the 1920s. This in fact is the key to the movie's main strength; all of Allen's characters look, act and feel like they belong there, so while the story twists, weaves and contorts is way through a restrained romantic comedy, I could at least believe in it for its 98 minutes. Which is all I ask of a film.

The in-film music (ie, the songs heard/played by the characters) works very well, but the film features the occasional classical piece overlaid, which can feel a little overblown given the delicate nature of the story. Oh, and speaking of music, the party-scene uses the same recording of The Charleston which used to head up episodes of The Gentleman's Review, leaving me waiting for the machine-gun to come in. Alas, I was disappointed. Woody Allen not a TGR fan, apparently.

Best exchange: "May I have your autograph?" - "Autographs are for mental defectives."

Magic In The Moonlight is a charming, sincere and witty love story for our cynical times which succeeds by not being set in our clinical times. Fussy and meticulous, but thoroughly charming, like a very sarcastic episode of Hustle, written by Agatha Christie.

Not really. By having to explain the plot, the trailer's cut far too fast for the lingering sarcasm of the humour to really work. Film > Trailer.



I did.



For me yes, although your mileage will vary and I know the critics are mixed over this one.



If you're a Woody Allen fan, cinema. For everyone else, this should be fine for renting when it's released.



Not really.



I will.



There isn't. It's like they've gone out of fashion, or something.







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.

Review: Parkland

Parkland
Cert: 15 / 94 mins / Dir. Peter Landesman



Peter Landesman's telling of the events surrounding the assassination of John F Kennedy could easily have gone down a mawkish route (especially with a release date to mark 50 years since the event), but his tense script and busy camera keep the running time fully on the rails, with little time for weeping. The only real sentimentality on show is the depiction of a time when the public revered, and even loved, their elected representatives. Even then, there's little in the way of judgement being bandied about; the parts of the film featuring the average citizen (these scenes are in a minority, admittedly) reflect the shock and helplessness of a public who could barely even imagine that something like this could happen, never mind that it would.

Now given that I'm no scholar on the subject, I've pretty much got to take the true story aspect of the film in good faith. There are great performances all round, especially in a marvellously tense scene in the emergency-room as doctors fruitlessly pound away at the deceased's chest, a deafening silence filling the room as no-one wants to be the one who gave up on The President while the packed room bears witness. Between the Parkland hospital staff who are faced first with trying to resuscitate the most powerful man in the world and just days later have the same task presented with his killer, the Secret Service and FBI agents trying to establish if they could have prevented the shooting, and the traumatised bystander who took one of the most infamous home movies ever, the film chooses its areas of scrutiny carefully. Even as it stands, and with only four days of events depicted, there's a lot to cover, so this is by no means a complete journal.

But for all the accomplished acting I've listed so far, the standout performances come from James Badge Dale and Jacki Weaver who star as Lee Harvey Oswald's brother and mother, respectively. The former is torn between trying to have some sympathy for his brother, despite being horrified at what he's pretty sure he's done, and facing increasing hostility from the public and police for guilt-by-association; the latter is a terrifying vision of an attention-seeking fantasist, literally attempting to cash-in on the actions of her son (who's even more certain that he's guilty). These can't have been easy parts to write, research or play, and they lift the film above the historical melodrama it could have been.

On a far less serious subject, the film features Jackie Earle Haley from Watchmen, Glenn Morshower from X-Men: First Class, and James Badge Dale from Iron Man 3. That's quite a spandex pedigree, isn't it?

It's to be applauded that the film centres on the memory of the events, rather than those of the man, whilst also largely steering clear of conspiracy theories. The number of angles the story is told from constantly jostle for position, not always successfully, but they also work together to form a tense patchwork of four days in 1963. It's doubtful how much light this will cast on events this far down the line, but it's a tale worth telling, nonetheless.

Yes.



I can't go that far, but the film kept my attention for its duration.



I think it does, if only because it's not trying to cover too much.



Realistically, this is a DVD-movie.



No.



At some point, but it's hardly "Oh, I know what I fancy watching tonight…".



There isn't.

Was I supposed to find it funny when the FBI agents were sawing into the doorway of the plane in order to fit Kennedy's battered coffin through? I seemed to be the only one chuckling, that's all.

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.