From Across the Pond

Film Reviews: "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima"

I watched these two films on consecutive days, given the publicity which saw them as a pair of films rather than just separate works. Certainly watching  them together was complimentary, but they are perfectly good stand alones as well. They also tell quite different stories, quite apart from the obvious difference of perspective.

Flags of our Fathers was the first one I watched. This is really a film of two parts - the account of the battle of Iwo Jima from the point of view of the men who were in the famous photo, and the account of how the propaganda efforts the US government did following the battle and the role the survivors had in that. The two tales are not told linerally, rather the battle itself is told though a series of flashbacks the men have as they go through their barnstorming tour.

Letters from Iwo Jima is, in contrast, focused entirely on the battle of Iwo Jima. It is therefore a battle film in a way that Flags of Our Fathers is not. The film starts some time before the battle, with the appointment of General Kuribayashi to lead the defence. The first portion of the film is therefore the build-up as the general struggles with unconvinced subordinates. He is one of two main characters - the other is of a (fictional) ordinary soldier. Then the battle begins and the film traces the desperate defence, and also shines a light into the very oppressive atmosphere in which the the Japanese soldiers laboured and fought, and the twisted codes which made so many commit suicide.

The film is in Japanese, which I am very grateful for. At times there are voiceovers, which are the letters being written home (hence the title). There are occasional flashbacks as the main characters look back on their past, but always the ugly reality reasserts itself.

There are some beautiful shots in both films of the invasion fleet, of the landings, and of the bombardment of Mt Suribachi - it shows you how far special effects have developed in the last ten years.

Some have expressed a modern political commentary in these films, especially in Flags of our Fathers. I am unconvinced by it, and think they are reading rather more than these films allow. These films do ask hard questions about heroism, what it is to be a hero, and more specifically what it is to be perceived as a hero by a nation at large. But they do not provide easy answers, just demonstrate a few examples through a few of the characters.

I must say I found Letters to be the better of the two films, but that might just be because I prefer straight battle films to the montage of Flags.

Verdict: Flag of our Fathers B / Letters from Iwo Jima B+

Film Review: The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford

I recently saw this film via the wonders of Sky Box Office. I didn't even know about its existence until I saw a few of the adverts for it, and decided to watch it in large part because I like Brad Pitt's as an actor.

I was not disappointed. The acting by both Brad Pitt (Jesse James) and Casey Affleck (Robert Ford) was exceptional, and the two played off each other very well. This is a film that is entirely made on those two performances, and they do hold it together.

The basic story is contained in the title - this is a film about the killing of the outlaw Jesse James. I knew virtually nothing about the history or the myth of Jesse James prior to seeing this film. I mean, I knew that he was shot in the back while looking at a picture because a friend of mine used that as inspiration in a story of his own, but that is pretty much it. Anyway, that is the basic story. The full story is actually about the character of the two men, Jesse James and Robert Ford, and goes into some depth into Robert Ford's motivations. And indeed, despite the prejudiced title there is a sense in which the film is quite sympathetic to Robert Ford. By the time of the extended epilogue is brought to a close we feel quite sorry for the man.

The film is not a rollicking adventure - it is not that sort of the film. Indeed, it suffers from being a little too slow in places, and the epilogue in particular felt to be overly lengthy after an already somewhat lengthy film. Something perhaps a little more focused would have been better. And while I find this most noticeable during the epilogue, the entire film felt a little indulgent in places, and could probably have done with being slightly more focused.

Despite that this remains a good film, and one I was pleased to have watched. It is not a film I would look out to buy, but if I was trying to make up a multi-buy offer or saw it at reduced price it is something I might add to my collection.

Verdict: B-

DVD Review: Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds Live on Stage

I recently bought the DVD of the live performance of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds that was recorded at Wembley Stadium last year. It was the first time this classic production has gone on tour.

A little history for those in the dark. In 1978 an album was released of musical version of H G Well's science-fiction classic, The War of the Worlds. The musical version takes a few liberties with the original story. To give one example, in the book some chapters are devoted to the experiences of the narrator's brother, whereas in this version they happen to the narrator. The story is also pretty drastically simplified to its core, but done in such a war that it remains very rich. Nothing essential is left out. The music is a mixture of electronic, percussion, and strings, with several songs set in it. However, most famously the spoken narration was done by Sir Richard Burton. And, in a very smart move, almost all of the narration is lifted directly from the text. Almost everyone in the UK of about my age grew up hearing this album at one time or another. I have owned a copy of it, first as a cassette tape, and later as a CD, since I was about 10 (which was about a decade after the original release).

Thus I was very excited to learn that this DVD of a live performance was made. I learnt from the extras that there had originally been plans to do a stage version back in the mid-80s, but the death of Sir Richard Burton scuppered that. But more recently Jeff Wayne, the creator of this wonderful version, has gone at it again, and what a show.

There is bound to be a difference between the actual live performance, and a DVD recording of such. Watching through a television, even a fairly large one with surround sound, is far removed from actually being in place. Yet even so, the show blew me away. And it all started at the beginning, because for this production they rigged up a massive anamatronic version of Sir Richard Burton's head and used the recording of his narration. It wouldn't be the same without those measured tones announcing "No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century..."

In another nice touch two of singers from the original album (Justin Heyward, who sung "The Eve of the War" and "Forever Autumn", and Chris Thompson "Thunderchild") are part of the cast in this production. Jeff Wayne was clearly trying to carry over as much as possible from the album to the stage, not only in the music (which is unaltered) but in the entire scope, and in this he succeeded admirably.

The whole production was a spectacular array of music, lights, and video - for at the back of the stage was a 30-foot screen which showed images backing up the story. And, in addition to Richard Burton's head, during the destruction of Weybridge a lifesize Martian Fighting Machine descended from the ceiling, with some pyrotechics off the hood mimicking cannon shells and a light arrays pretending to be the heat-ray, timed to flash over the audience in sequence with the narration. These words hardly do it justice.

There was only point where I found the story dragged, and it is exactly the same place as in the album - the chapter entitled "The Red Weed" I always find to be a little too long. But I am nitpicking.

Ultimately, what I liked best was hearing (and in one sense also 'seeing') Richard Burton narrate some of what I consider to be the finest lines in English literature. There are two passages in particular which I think show just how much Wells got out of the language. In the book they a little more expansive, but only a  little, and Jeff Wayne has kept the vital core:

... As I hastened through Covent Garden, Blackfriars, and Billingsgate, more and more people joined the painful exodus. Sad, weary women, their children stumbling and streaked with tears, their men bitter and angry; the rich rubbing shoulders with beggars and outcasts. Dogs snarled and whined, the horses bits were covered with foam, and here and there were wounded soldiers, as helpless as the rest.

Only a few words, yet they describe was a refugee column looks like as effectively as a million pictures. This is a scene that could be describing one of the many conflicts of the twentieth, and twenty-first century. It is so true to life, but it does not require reams of prose. A few well chosen words, in the album, wonderfully spoken by Burton, is all it takes. The second passage is just a little later, and talks of the grand situation, which was the evacuation of London in terror, London at its height at the end of the nineteenth century when Britain ruled the waves:

Never before in the history of the world had such a mass of human beings moved and suffered together. This was no disciplined march, it was a stampede, without order and without a goal: six million people unarmed, and unprovisioned driving headlong. It was the beginning of the rout of civilisation, of the massacre of mankind.

It is sometimes difficult to capture the enormity of disasters, be they human-made or as a result of non-human action (being it natural or not). But here I think Wells, for this passage is nearly exactly as it is in the book (one phrase, I think, is excised), does so brilliantly. And again, from the refugee movements of modern times it is an all too believable scenarior, the displacement of millions of people.

For those who knew of the sound album, this DVD will be a real treat. For those who have yet to experience this magnificent creation, the DVD would be a good start.

A+

Film Review: The Guardian

I watched this film a couple of days ago on through the HD box on Sky Anytime. It is a fairly basic story, you have the old hero, the young kid, and the one teaching the other things he knows. It is based around the rescue swimmers of the US Coastguard, and in part around the training they undergo. In the process the old hero (Kevin Costner's character) forms something of a adversarial relationship with a young swimming champ, though in the process of their time together at camp Costner passes along what he knows and the young'un starts to grow up. That is the very simplified theme of this film.

And it pulls it off pretty well. The acting is fairly good, the internal logic of the film is believable and consistent. It does not pretend to be great theatre, but comes across honestly. I find it to be a decent film to watch, a decent night's entertainment. It was paced well - it didn't drag nor did it feel too rushed. The very, very ending was a little twee for my taste, but no harm done.

If I see it on special offer, or I am trying to make up a 5 for £30 deal or something, I might well pick up the DVD, but equally it is not something I will be intending to buy. On the other hand, if I am channel-flipping and I see it is on I might well stop and rewatch a bit of it again.

C+

Kill Bill and the Passion of the Christ: A comparison of violence

This weekend I watched for the first time Kill Bill Vol 1 and Vol 2, in the same sitting. I would advise anyone who has not watched them to do the same, as there is a really flow to the story. I had a very good evening (helped I will admit by a nice steak and 2/3 of a lovely bottle of vinum). There are, as was well publicised at the time, very violent films. It will probably be remembered that The Passion of the Christ was released at a similar time, also a very violent film. The Kill Epic, I had the impression, was widely hailed as a great film. The Passion was roundly denounced, in large part because of its violence.

The thing is, superficially at least, the Kill Bill films are really much more violent, in that there is a veritable harvest of chopped limbs and heads, and plenty of fountains of blood. There is a crucial difference. In Kill Bill the violence has a cinematic quality - partly aided by some of what Tarantino does with the camera.

Also the atmopshere in Kill Bill is more fictional. That is not entirely apparent at first blush - it is after all set in the modern day - but right from the start there is a sense of being at a slight tangent to reality. All this combines to soften the violence, allow it to be filed away in the 'unreal' category. I was able to suspend my disbelief to enjoy the story, but there was no question of crossover into the real world.

In contrast The Passion is a far less forgiving film. There is on softening. In addition the fact that I was viewing something that is pretty much history fact (the crucifixtion of Jesus) and a form of execution that definitely was (crucifixion remains one of the nastier things human beings have invented to do to each other).

Also, in Kill Bill the violence is dispersed among many victims. In The Passion it is concentrated on just one actor. It is therefore so much more intense.

For those reasons I think it is actually very difficult to meaningfully compare the violence in the two films: except by showing how different they are. I suppose it is the difference between 'shocking' and 'harrowing' - not that The Passion didn't shock me either. As I said at the start, the Kill Bill films are superficially more violent. The Passion attracted so much ire precisely because, whatever else it may or may not have been, it was not a superficial film.