It's hard to know what to say about David Lowery's A Ghost Story without somehow spoiling it, even though (with perhaps one exception*1) it's not the kind of movie you can actually spoil. It was only after watching it in its entirety that I understood why the trailer is so vague; it's not that the film follows suit, but the story needs the full run-time to unfold and can't really be compressed into snippets. There are single, static, dialogue-free shots in A Ghost Story which are longer than the trailer. There will be some who don't get it*2, which is as all art should be.
The story is, as you would assume, about ghosts. And while the poster and trailer's figure-in-the-sheet may seem inherently comical, this is one of the most profoundly heartbreaking films I've seen. Less of a linear haunting, more a tone-poem on memory and loss. It's thoughtful, lingering, and treats time like a tidal-lake rather than a river. Lowery slowly administers an existential anesthesia, simultaneously telling you that everything's not going to be alright, but it's alright that everything's not going to be alright. A Ghost Story is either brilliant or merely intriguing, I can't decide which on a first-pass.
Rooney Mara is quietly compelling as always (this role seems to be tailor-made for her particular skills) and Casey Affleck may just have found the role where he can take his broodiness to its peak-level. There are many other cast-members too, in smaller roles, but to go there would be to undo the magic of watching it for the first time.
For the regular, non-arthouse movie-goer (let's be honest, me), there are a couple of hurdles to overcome, of course. The 3:4 aspect ratio with the addition of rounded corners makes the film look like it's being presented through a View-Master, as does the feeling that every frame has been post-processed in Instagram. I found the first half-hour simultaneously entrancing and infuriating. But at the scene when the central, restless spirit has its first meaningful contact with… well, anyone - a wide, sad grin spread across my face and it all clicked in to place in my brain.
Although I have issues with A Ghost Story, they're my issues, not the film's. I'm just aware that this is absolutely the work which David Lowery wanted to make and that counts for a lot…
I'm actually not sure.
It's definitely more M.R. James than James Wan, at any rate.
If you can, but you won't lose much by seeing this at home.
I'm pretty certain it does.
It's hard to tell.
Which is one of the things I liked about it.
It's entirely possible.
Not at all.
There isn't.
Level 2: Rooney Mara's in this, and she was in 2010's Nightmare on Elm Street remake, as was Clancy 'Opress' Brown.
*1 Vague spoilers, highlight-to-read: And sorry to be 'that guy', but the scene with the piano which the film waits the whole film to proudly unveil is super-telegraphed. Anyone who's seen the first two Insidious films will clock that one a mile off. Although by the same token, anyone walking out of the film saying 'well I knew that was going to happen' has fundamentally misunderstood what they've watched. Yes, of course I realise how contradictory this sounds... [ BACK ]
*2 On a similar theme to Overdrive's slack attendance record from the same day, there were three walk-outs during A Ghost Story's screening. I understand this with a Saturday night audience when Annabelle: Creation is playing further down the corridor and undoubtedly lost the toss for some folks standing in the foyer, but come on people, show some discipline… [ 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.
Lion Cert: PG / 118 mins / Dir. Garth Davis / Trailer
Talk about an achilles-heel. In order to sell the cinematic adaptation of Saroo Brierley's remarkable life (in which he's separated as a five-year old from his family in poverty-stricken Khandwa, India, lives for several months 1600km away on the streets of Kolkata before being taken in by an orphanage then moved to Austrialia for adoption, then over twenty years later manages to track down his birth-mother by means of persistence, luck and Google Earth), the trailer has to focus on the English-language part of the film starring Dev Patel. In doing so, the trailer communicates absolutely nothing of what makes the story special.
The first half (roughly) of Garth Davis' film is set in India and follows Saroo as a young boy, showing how he came to be lost and the path of utter uncertainty which led to him being chosen for a new life in Tasmania. The first half of the film features a young actor named Sunny Pawar as Saroo. The first half of the film is compelling, enthralling and utterly heartbreaking. To say that Pawar is good would be an understatement. Even as child-actors go, I haven't seen a performance this strong since Jacob Tremblay in Room. When you also factor in that the majority of Sunny's scenes are either with one other actor or on his own, plus the subtitled nature of this half of the film meaning that his acting is almost entirely physical (from an English-speaking audience's point-of-view), I'd go as far as saying his is the best performance I've seen this year, hands-down. He strikes the perfect chord as being a child who's clearly highly intelligent, but almost completely uneducated (formally). He has the wits to survive as a stranger on the other side of an unbelievably harsh country, but doesn't know where he's from in order to try and get back there (although to be fair, how many five-year olds would?).
Things start getting a little more heavy-handed once Saroo is settled in Oz and we get a '20 years later' card, and by the time the story's skipped forward another twelve months, the Dev Patel, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara & David Wenham family drama has turned into a mawkish, over-acted soap-opera where the only performer who can do the story justice is Patel himself. And he's good, but he has so much to carry that I quickly lost interest and empathy with the story. However, when Saroo finally tracks down his old hometown on Google Earth, I did get a tingle (this is a true story, these aren't spoilers). And when he's finally reunited with his birth-mother, I did get a warm glow. And when the denouement of the film shows the real-life-actual Saroo with his real-life-actual mother Kamla, I did have something in my eye, a bit. And this is the only film in living memory where I can say that the transition to the story's real-life counterparts is welcome. Sully, take note.
Lion is good.
Dev Patel is very good.
Sunny Pawar is outstanding.
And with this exception of Dev, do your best to ignore the English-speaking cast…
Well, it's a bit Hundred-Foot Journey in places.
For the right and wrong reasons.
Not especially.
That said (and this isn't just because of the answer to question 7), some of the photography in the film is absolutely outstanding.
It does, but in spite of its best efforts not to.
It's Sunny Pawar's first movie, but he's set his own bar high.
For everyone else? No.
Nah.
There isn't.
Level 1: The director of photography for Lion is a Mr Grieg Fraser, who coincidentally performs the same role for Rogue One.
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.
After watching Kubo and the Two Strings for the first time on Saturday and being thoroughly overwhelmed by it, I wrote up a gushing love-letter masquerading as a review and set about reading some of the others online (after planning this second visit, of course). Other than similar levels of admiration for the film, what put an even wider grin on my face was that almost every piece I read went out of its way to directly reference the film's opening monologue. So clearly and powerfully is it delivered, grabbing the audience's attention and setting up the kaleidoscopic framework of the storytelling, that the words "If you must blink, do it now..." will surely become round-table shorthand for penning an excellent script. And much like The Book of Life, the film handles spirituality, faith and tradition in a respectful but totally non-dogmatic and non-patronising way. This film is outstanding.
Another thing which cropped up, albeit less frequently, was debate of the film's PG certificate in the UK. The BBFC (the UK's film certification body, similar to the MPAA in the US)'s guidelines state that "frightening sequences or situations where characters are in danger should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor. Violence will usually be mild. However there may be moderate violence, without detail, if justified by its context (for example, history, comedy or fantasy)". Short version: this should be fine, but obviously don't just park your kids in front of it while you go to Wetherspoons, yeah?
Now at no point did the reviews necessarily suggest that the rating for Kubo should be at the next level up, a 12A (even if one article specifically claimed the film is really an animation for grown-up audiences only), but several of them were worried that the darker moments would be too scary for younger members of the audience. And I got the distinct impression they didn't mean three-and-four year olds, but children in general. To which I call bullshit, frankly.
Yes, Kubo has scary sections. They're supposed to be scary. The level of threat is no worse than in many of Disney's classic animated features (and keep in mind that while the likes of Cruella de Vil can indeed exist in the world outside the cinema, the threats in this film are framed in a magical enough context that no child should be worried for long about them actually happening). Because of the story's metaphorical nature, young Kubo faces literal ghosts and demons here, and although our hero possesses the ability to perform magic, it can't be used as a weapon for attack and he doesn't wield it as one.
And it's important that Kubo's foes are supernaturally powerful, because that way he won't be able to beat them with conventional violence, even with the magic armour he quests for- the film's macguffin, in a very real sense, since Kubo already carries with him the means of ending the conflict. It's also vital that the hero learns this on his own, rather than just being told it by the Monkey and Beetle guardians (who also learn this through Kubo's actions).
Naturally there will be a cut-off point at which children are too young get what's going on (this applies to any movie), but if they're old enough to understand why the hero is in peril, they they're old enough to learn from the film. The scary moments in Kubo are more than compensated for by the film's message, indeed they're part of it. Some media will require a parent to sit down with their child afterwards to talk about what they've seen, read or listened to. It doesn't mean that's bad content, often the very opposite. I believe that discussion is called parenting*1. But hey, you know your kids.
The 'G' in PG stands for guidance, not gatekeeper...
If the film isn't scary then there's no weight to the story and we're not willing Kubo to succeed. Because the lesson here isn't to be fearful, but that fear can be overcome with knowledge, with persistence, with acceptance. Kubo doesn't defeat his nemesis with violence, he does it with compassion. And not in a 'I've decided to spare my enemy at the last moment and hey we're all friends now' sort of a way, but a clean slate that benefits everyone, with no aggrandisement of the victor or shame upon the loser. There are no losers, here.
Kubo and the Two Strings teaches us that while there's certainly a time to stand fiercely against the things which oppose you, a warrior's greatest weapon isn't their sword, but their heart. And you're never too young to learn that lesson...
Any of Laika's previous work, and maybe a little Samurai Jack?.
Yes.
Absolutely.
I'd say so.
Well, I shall look sternly over my spectacles whilst you explain yourself, I imagine.
There ain't.
Level 1: This film's got George Takei's voice in it, and he is most famous of course for portraying the Nemoidian shrubbery-menace Lok Durd in The Clone Wars.
*1 Although I say this as someone who doesn't have children. But I did used to be one, and it wasn't that long ago...
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.
On the whole, I'm not an animation-snob (cf*1), but the presence today of the trailer for the upcoming Trolls movie from Dreamworks brought about the gut-wrenching feeling that animated storytelling is seriously, seriously ill. Between the computers which have rendered the film and the marketing robots who wrote, cast and performed in it, the cinematic result seems far more plastic than the product they're artlessly trying to revive. That's an extreme example of course, but a symptom of decline which shouldn't be dismissed.
And if Deamworks' Trolls is the disease, Kubo and the Two Strings is the antidote.
Set in classical-era Japan, from the moment that Art Parkinson's eponymous young hero delivers the first words of the film, "If you must blink, do it now…", the audience is whisked into a multi-pronged folk tale with Inception-like layers of metaphor, intertwining and interacting to become far more than the sum of their parts. I spent most of the film with either goosebumps, a massive grin on my face or a combination of both. With Kubo removed from his home and placed on an overtly-magical quest to recover the armour which will protect him against his enemies, plot-moments which any other film would delight in holding back as A Reveal™ are neatly signposted, yet no less satisfying in their eventual execution. It's a textbook rendition of The Hero's Journey that's made stronger by its adherence to the principles.
It also looks bloody gorgeous. As much as computer animation is a valuable tool in the right hands (and indeed is used in Kubo as an assist, rather than a crutch), there's something so tactile about Laika's stop-motion work that speaks to the audience more than even live-action movies can. The amount of care which has gone into every single frame of Kubo is humbling. As immersive as the story is, I never forgot I was watching a film in a cinema, although that's also very much the point of the narrative-layering. The irony also wasn't lost on me that all assembled were watching a film in 3D*2 where so much emphasis is put on the protagonist only having one eye (and indeed, his ultimate foe having none). Kubo's monocular vision is never presented as a setback, but is it a subtextual nudge from the film-makers that you should be sitting next door in the 2D screening?
But like all the best stories, Kubo can be enjoyed as the adventure-tale that sits on the surface or as a lesson in storytelling itself, and there should be something in here for all audiences. I'm aware that my outpouring of admiration has possibly looked too deeply into the structural side of things, but with a film this good, I can't not. It's funny, it's exciting and as you've gathered, I genuinely cannot find a bad word to say about this film. To me, it is perfect.
Oh, and watch the end-credits; until the names begin to roll, at least.
Laika's masterpiece, Kubo and the Two Strings is utterly magical; everything that animation is meant to be.
You should watch it any way you can.
Which, for now, is in a cinema.
Yes.
Yes.
And that's not to be dismissive of the director's previous works with Laika.
Although, as Art Parkinson appeared in San Andreas, Charlize Theron starred in Winter's War and Matthew McConaughey spent more than a few years in the thespic wilderness, I'll reaffirm that the answer to this question is a resounding YES.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But I'll want an explanation, at least.
Not that I heard.
There seem to be several subtle references to Star Wars throughout, be it odd moments in Dario Marianelli's score, the similarity between the magical effects of Kubo's shamisen and the seismic charges from AotC, or just the feeling that the Samurai armour in the film is returning the favour and paying a sly compliment to Darth Vader.
Anyway, it's Level 1: This film features the voice of George 'Lok Durd' Takei.
*1 Exceptions apply, obviously, and sometimes bad CGI just has to be called out for what it is.
*2 And I'm pleased to report that the 3D works really well in this movie. Laika had previously struggled to bring the depth to the screen with the size of miniature they were working with, but that seemed to be ironed out with time and it's good to see they're now comfortable with 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.
Carol Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Todd Haynes / Trailer
Despite the atrocious social politics, the 1950s seem alright, don't they? The two lead characters in this movie sit down in a restaurant, order and have their food (plus cocktails!) in front of them within four minutes! I can't even get the waiting-staff's attention in that time. That said, I look like neither Cate Blanchett nor Rooney Mara, so…
Adapted from Patricia Highsmith's 1952 novel, The Price Of Salt, Carol stars the aforementioned actresses struggling to reconcile the relationship they both want; not only because of general societal norms, but also because of the expectations of their friends and families. And if that all sounds a bit too over-earnest, don't worry, it's not really. As Drama™ goes, Carol is directed a little too languidly for its own good, and Haynes' pace is too relaxed to seize the angst and emotional drama that's at the core of the story.
The film is saved by its performances, rather than being driven forward by its narrative, and both Blanchett and Mara inhabit the roles completely. I bought into Carol and Therese's characters individually, but not so much their relationship, although I suspect that's because the film itself is hesitant about exploring that too deeply. It's also important to remember, of course, that the story was written around the time it's set, which explains much of its slightly reserved tone. While most serious dramas at this time of year smells a lot like awards-bait, I think Carol shows too much restraint for its own good, and will probably slip through the Oscar-net*1.
A fine looking movie in terms of sets and wardrobe, cinematographer Edward Lachman makes great use of both reflection and unconventional framing. But his colour-balancing, film-grain and camera-wobble are all over the place, the latter of which suggests a lot of zoom/crop shots. A story about a relationship that didn't bloom, rather than one that shone and burned-out, the film isn't always as visually quiet as the tone of the script requires it to be. Although the final dialogue-free scene saw many of my perceived gripes pushed aside*2.
Despite the combination of the story's era and subject-matter, there's little which is daring or challenging about the film, yet it's still an engaging watch throughout. Carol feels more like a repressed melodrama than an intense romance, and I'm not sure that does it any favours in the long-term…
It is, but…
…you wouldn't lose too much by spending that £10+ on the DVD and watching it at home.
Not quite, although both Blanchett and Mara are outstanding in their work and they can't all be the best performance.
For me, no.
Nope.
Nope.
Cate Blancett starred in those Lord Of The Rings and Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
1 Plus, with the best will in the world, I just don't think it's that good. And while I'm on, how the hell does Kyle Chandler get an 'And' credit?? He's hardly the special guest of the week, ringing on the doorbell as he pops round to borrow a cup of sugar, single-handedly raising the profile of the film with his presence alone, now is he?
*2 Not my gripes about the photography, though. That much hand-held camera-shake for the final, measured, interior tracking shot is nothing short of excruciating.
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.
