Well, if Brad Pitt played with unabashed glee recently in his Casablanca-themed sandpit, Live By Night is very much Ben Affleck's Godfather fan-film. Adapted from Dennis Lehane's 2012 novel, our Ben directs and screen-writes and stars*1 in the tale of self-made gangster Joe Coughlin, rum-running in prohibition-era America while somehow managing to keep his hands clean.
It's not bad, but given the films which clearly influenced it, it's certainly not great and feels like Affleck couldn't decide what sort of movie he wanted to make. The script is fairly mechanical, with exposition in every other sentence as a four-hour story is squeezed into a two-hour film, and characters are killed off-screen with a single perfunctory line. The hero's wily, moustache-twirling nemesis is set up in the first twenty minutes then seemingly forgotten about until the last ten, and as much as the story rushes through its fifteen-or-so years (with minimal ageing to the principal cast, obviously, and with the heavy-handed assistance of Coughlin's sporadic narration), it still finds time to slot in some quite astonishing sermonising*2.
When he's not trying to channel Gene Kelly in modelling a wide selection of jauntily-angled hats, Affleck struggles with his character's Boston accent*3, almost as much as any Irish character that's not being played by an Irish actor struggles with theirs.
But perhaps the film's biggest problem is that the pacing's all over the shop. Affleck's great at directing the action sequences, but fails to bring any real dynamism to the dialogue-led scenes (of which there are many). With more patience and focus, this could have been a contender for the all-time great gangster-flicks. The ingredients are all there but the chef lacks the discipline to cook them properly.
The lengthy gunfire sequences are pretty neat, though (and with some fantastic head-shots).
In the January no-man's land between awards-bait and popcorn-fodder, Live By Night should be a lean, visceral yet extravagant drama; instead it's just period-detailed padding.
Well Ben would have you believe Scarface and The Godfather, but I think the film actually has more in common with American Pastoral. And not just because of the presence of Elle Fanning, a performer who manages to ride right through the centre of the Uncanny Valley without even being CGI…
Why not? It'll save you going out to buy it on DVD then going out again to drop it off at the charity-shop when you've watched it once.
Create a non-demanding buffer film while we all wait impatiently for Batman?
Sure.
It is not.
I will not.
There is not.
Level 2: That Brendan Gleeson's in this, and he was in that Calvary alongside his boy, Domhnall 'Hux' Gleeson.
*1 Which, let's face it, is a level of involvement that's rarely a good sign for any project.
*2 Because our hero may be a smug, opportunistic, lying, treacherous murderer with commitment and authority-issues, but at least he's not a racist. I'm not kidding, this is literally Act III of the film.
*3 Well I say 'struggles', it's more 'forgets about until he says a word like "bar" or "walk", at which point he's all over it like Peter Griffin'.
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.
M*A*S*H (1970)
Cert: 15 / 116 mins / Dir. Robert Altman / Trailer
There is a reason that this series of retrospective reviews has lain dormant for eight months. I've tried on several occasions to watch my chosen entry for 1970, Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, and failed. It's been turned off within the first half-hour with me under the impression that I just wasn't in a sufficiently receptive mood. So tonight I cleared the palette of my assumptions and expectations, and determinedly settled in for one of the most successful and critically acclaimed films of its year.
Spoiler-alert: I didn't particularly enjoy M*A*S*H in its entirety any more than I had throughout its repeated opening act. Several things appeared to be working against me. But whether it's my own lack of familiarity with the Korean war which is the setting for the story, my own lack of familiarity with the Vietnam war which is what the story's really about, or whether it's just a film intended and widely regarded as being A Comedy™ that I didn't find funny, I guess I'll never know. And sure, it's a satirical comedy but Ring Lardner's screenplay doesn't even boast the defiance of gallows humour, it's just largely 1960s slapstick and smut*1 padding out inappropriately grim scenarios. The film isn't punching up, just a loosely knotted collection of sketches with punchlines of varying visibility and effectiveness.
And I suspect that having characters mumbling and talking over each other for extended periods of time is meant to be a running joke, rather than a repetitious annoyance. That frequent unsteady crash-zoom was doing my head in, as well. The film has managed to sour my previously fond memories of the TV show.
Anyway, it's watched now, and I shall endeavour not to choose 'comedy' as the genre for future entries in the programme. Meh...
Really, not. Used to watch episodes of the show on TV when I was younger, but never got into it enough to go back and watch the movie. Although if I recall correctly, the thing I enjoyed most about the series was Alan Alda's Hawkeye, and his character was played in this preceding film by Donald 'comedy legend' Sutherland…
Well, I guess.
Not unless you were a fan of the TV series.
In which case, you'll probably have seen it.
Didn't hear one.
Level 2: This movie features Robert Duvall, who also starred in George Lucas' first big-screen movie, THX-1138.
*1 Complete with the racial, gender and sexual politics of the day, naturally. Although I understand that you can't judge a work of decades ago on the values of today, it doesn't mean you just have to accept its inelegance, either.
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 one with the Force, the Force is with me. I'm one with the Force, the Force is with me. I'm one with the Force, the Force is with me."
~ Chirrut Îmwe, Jedha / Eadu / Scarif.
During its time on Jedha, Rogue One introduces us to Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, two former 'Guardians of the Whills' at the moon's now depleted Kyber Temple. During times of psychological or physical stress, both are heard to utter the above mantra*1, seemingly willing guidance from, and harmony with, the Force. Neither Chirrut or Baze are Jedi. And this is a phrase that we haven't heard the Jedi use in the cinematic saga, so far. Odd.
Up until 2016 (and largely discounting any ideas that Legends material had to say on the matter), being 'one with the Force' was the label put upon a Jedi retaining their sentience and identity after death, of joining with the living energy field to form a narrative bridge between the corporeal meat-space of the GFFA and the afterlife. I should say as well that the 'disappearing-trick' and the 'coming-back-trick' are two different things; Obi-Wan disappears quickly, Yoda disappears slowly, Qui-Gon doesn't disappear at all, and Anakin is still open to speculation. But they all came back, and at varying speeds of 'completion'.
When Baze and Chirrut chant "…I am one with the Force", are they trying to attain complete, transcendental immersion? Do they even know it exists? Was Qui-Gon the first to achieve this, or just the first in a very long time? Bear in mind he figured out how to do it after he died, and this was a surprise to Yoda, implying that even the Jedi Council don't know how it works. And if it's something the highest echelons of the order is unaware of (or have systematically forgotten over the years, despite still having notes on the Sith), then would the non-Jedi guardians of the Kyber Temple know about it? Then again, do those on Jedha have access to more ancient records that the cosmopolitan elite Jedi on Coruscant regard as quaint and archaic? Was this knowledge something that was lost over time, or even hidden to prevent dark-siders from exploring and adapting their own version; the spiritual equivalent of their synthetic lightsaber crystals*2?
Other than the Skywalker lineage, it was unclear in the Original Trilogy if the Force was something anyone could master with faith and commitment, or it if was a gift reserved for 'the chosen ones'. The Prequel Trilogy revealed it to be the latter, although not entirely uncommon (enough for the movement to muster a sparse galactic police-force). And while The Force Awakens concentrated more on the light and dark side in broader strokes, rather than Jedi™ and Sith™, Rogue One muddies the waters further with the Guardians of the Whills; non-Jedi beings who can still sense and react to the Force (or, as I said upon an earlier viewing, like someone who can read and understand a language, but can't pick up a pen to write in it). Baze Malbus and Chirrut Îmwe are (presumably) the last vestiges of the Force-Fanboys, unable to channel it fully, but willing to dedicate their lives in the service of those who can.
The more we've seen of the Jedi, the less the Force has been treated as an outright religion, more a set of guidelines and practices (closer in that respect to something like Buddhism). Warrior monks, the Jedi don't have to pray for the assistance or intervention or the Force, they just have to understand how it works.
However, the two former guardians we meet in Rogue One treat the Force as a doctrine (one very much Of The Faithful™, the other very much Lapsed™) to be explored through meditation and practice, with Baze Malbus specifically referring to Chirrut's mantra-recital as "praying". But the only other time it's been named this way (cinematically at least, I know it crops up in Rebels once or twice), was by Grand Moff Tarkin in A New Hope. "You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion" *3.
But for all this, 'religion' implies faith, which in turn implies a lack of evidence. And irrespective of Midichlorians at one end of the scale and Imperial propaganda at the other, the Force in the GFFA is a demonstrably real thing. And despite much grumbling on the subject (although not at Blackout Towers; I just grumble about the grumbling), Midichlorians are just a device used to illustrate that the Jedi - a non species specific group of beings who can actively use the Force - have a common predisposition on a biological level. Midichlorians don't ruin the Force*4, they're just a tell-tale trait that indicates potential, irrespective of training or mastery. Detection of the microscopic lifeforms is how the Jedi used to identify and select infants for taking to Coruscant, and it's undoubtedly in the Empire's arsenal for the eradication of the Jedi. Because as a Jedi on the run, you can keep your head down and mute your abilities, but you can't disguise your genetic makeup. If Vader has, as previously suggested, been in charge of the Empire's programme to exterminate the Jedi and propagandise them out of the public mind, why would the Empire allow Force-sensitive guards to live at the site of the Kyber temple? It is because as non-Force-controlling beings, they have a below-the-line Midi count, so aren't considered a threat?
With the Holy City of Jedha turned to rubble (along with all those who didn't make it to a transport in sufficient time), it looks as if we're not likely to have many of these questions answered. Short of novels and comics set in a time before the events of Rogue One, the Guardians of the Whills look to be as mysterious a sect as the Jedi Temple Guards, written about but scarcely seen in action. Chirrut and Baze are higher-profile characters of course, so I'm at least expecting a Marvel comics mini-series about them, but I wouldn't be surprised if that barely touches upon their metaphysical presence in the Galaxy Far, Far Away.
For a film with no Jedi, Rogue One raises a lot of questions about the Force…
All of The Star Wars.
Yep.
It does.
It's a strong showing.
Nope.
Yep.
Level 0: It is Star Wars.
Although if you really wanted to go the long way round with it…
Rogue One features Mr Jimmy Smits reprising his prequel-era role as Bail Organa, and he starred in 2009's Mother and Child along with a certain Ahmed Best, who performed voice-work in the 2006 Scarface videogame adaptation, as did Bai Ling, who's due to appear in the upcoming When The Devil Rides Out, as is the late Kenny Baker, who of course rocked up in 1980's Flash Gordon movie with Rusty Goffe, who featured in the 1981 film History of the World Part I in a cast-list alongside Bea Arthur, who starred in the 1988 Mickey's 60th Birthday, as did Jimmy Smits, from Rogue One…
*1 Well, kinda. Whereas Chirrut says "I'm one with the Force, the Force is with me", Baze Malbus' final return to form sees him uttering "The Force is with me, I'm one with the Force". Not a massive difference tonally, but if you were a local vicar and you swapped round two lines of the Lord's Prayer, you'd expect a raised eyebrow and a letter from the bishop, right?
*2 Although I'm fairly certain that the concept of Lignan synthetic lightsaber crystals has now been largely swept under the rug of Legends, although the narrative need for them in the secret society of Sith still applies. We also don't yet know how/why Kylo Ren's lightsaber splutters the way it does so there's hope yet, even if Lignan gets renamed to something different.
*3 And after the events of Rogue One, I want to see a new Special Edition of A New Hope where the Grand Moff refers to the 'religion' in his conversation with Vader, then we cut to a different angle and a CGI-Tarkin who looks directly into the camera, does an exaggerated wink and chimes "especially now that Jedha's a building-site, eh lads? EH??"
*4 Unless you're a giant child who covets impenetrable magic over science of course, in which case I'm delighted that you're still upset about 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.
Y'know, I don't want to be that guy*1, but I've just watch a good film cropped out of its intended aspect ratio. With Manchester By The Sea projected full-width onto a 2.35:1 screen, the BBFC card was cut-off at the top and bottom since the film's clearly been shot and finalised in 16:9. I'd thought maybe it was just the card, but the closing credits (static on the screen) were far too close to the edges and occasionally cut off, too. And it's not a massive deal-breaker as the film was great anyway, but I'd put a fiver on cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes being pretty livid about it. Ho, hum.
Anyway, Manchester By The Sea is writer/director Kenneth Lonergan's drama about just-surviving janitor Lee (Casey Affleck) in Massachusetts, who learns of his older brother (Kyle Chandler) Joe's death and finds himself looking after his teenage nephew, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Demonstrating that angst and frustration aren't just for the young, the film is an ambling study of the relationship between the two in the aftermath of bereavement. Irregularly interspersed with flashbacks of Lee's interactions with his family, the story reveals his own past traumas which he has to deal with before moving on.
The dialogue occasionally whiffs of improvisation, but as long as it's being handled by the main players, there's no real harm done. There's also little-to-no delineation between the main narrative and Lee's flashback sequences. It's quite disorienting at first, but as a way of making the audience work harder I have to applaud it. Michelle Williams is outstanding as always, especially given her limited screen-time here. Lucas Hedges puts in a deceptively complex turn as the emotionally blindsided teenager, but this is really Casey Affleck's showpiece, his character spending the majority of the film in a haunted, socially inept daze. Affleck is a burgeoning master at the meandering introspection of regret.
Okay, it's not quite as heavy as I've made that sound (although it is still fairly heavy), thanks in no small part to Lonergan's screenplay and direction. While the film is never flippant with the frequently recurring themes of death, among the soul-searching are moments of arch and bittersweet comedy, which is perhaps to be expected. But script also has some moments of much darker humour that I almost felt guilty chuckling at*2. Although again, that's much closer to the reality of the situation than many of us would admit. The film's funnier that you'd expect and not as emotionally heavy as A Monster Calls, yet it's still not to be taken on lightly...
Well if you watch it at home you'll be able to choose the aspect-ratio you prefer, but sarcasm aside, this is probably a Sunday night DVD.
I think it does.
Probably not, but that's not to do the film any disservice.
Oh, and looking at his IMDB page, Kenneth Lonergan really needs to mix it up with his poster designers…
Nope.
Nope.
Level 2: This film stars Michelle Williams, and she was in that My Week With Marylin alongside Pip 'Colonel Kaplan' Torrens.
*1 Yes I do.
*2 It's either blackly-funny in places, or I have an appalling sense of humour. Which I do anyway, so it really could be both.
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.
