lazyreviewstudent7-blog

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

MM Part One (Addendum): The Buzz Dies

So I found out this morning that Tobe Hooper unfortunately passed away today. After George Romero and Gunnar Hansen two years back we’ve lost yet another pillar of horror cinema. The reason I’m writing this post is partly to say “Sleep well, Mr Hooper, and thank you for TXCM”, and partly to repost an interesting quote from the BBC’s coverage of his death. I wrote part one of my Misunderstood Movies article miniseries on TXCM, and I believe this quote from the man himself supports a few of my points:

“ Speaking in 2014 to Interview Magazine, Hooper explained why the Leatherface character in Chain Saw wore a mask.

‘When you can't see his face, your imagination goes wild," he said. "When you can't see, you fill in the blanks with something that's far more interesting than what can actually be shown’ " 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41065552

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

Back before Vincent D’Onoffrio was wooing Vanessa the art dealer and beating up The Punisher, he starred as one of the best supporting performances in Kubrick’s body of work...

Private Pyle

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

"Death, that undiscovered country..." -William Shakespeare

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Directed by Stanley Kubrick

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

Misunderstood Movies: Part One of Two

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

Misunderstood Movies: Part One of Two

There are some films under the enormous umbrella of modern cinema that are just misunderstood. They spend their lives after their release being subjected to endless incorrect assertions or negative perceptions they just can't stand up to. And so, like the proverbial young schoolboy faced with his chain-smoking chums, they are swept away on a tide of popular pressure. They become whatever they are perceived to be in the public eye. I don't think it's any kind of secret that this number is fairly low amongst mainstream movies. You could spend hours upon hours picking through obscure, cult or unknown pieces of cinema and find an abundance of "Misunderstood" films. Therefore I've chosen two of the most infamous examples of this section of cinema. The first I'd like to talk about is that infamous and tabooed household name of horror cinema: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) dir. Toby "Tobe" Hooper. So, what was the first thing that popped into your head when you read the title there? Chances are you have almost certainly heard of the film and know of its huge reputation. I'll bet that thing you thought of was either blood or gore! TXCM is widely considered to be the most gory, gratuitous and violent film ever made by the vast majority of the public. Only two things connect this huge group of people; firstly their shared opinion of the film, secondly that they have in all likelihood not seen it. The writer, actor and presenter Mark Gatiss once said that upon his first watching of the film he was utterly stunned by the sheer lack of gore, (See "Mark Gatiss's History of Horror" a 3 part BBC TV documentary, highly recommended!). This reaction is widespread and common amongst first-time watchers, and despite the fact that I myself knew of the film's content before seeing it I was still shocked. Tobe Hooper is a director who excels at striking that difficult balance of playing by the rules but also breaking and expanding them. He chose to follow the by then well established Val Lutonian school of horror, (you can create more scares and genuine horror by not always showing elements directly), when it came to the famous kills. We watch Gunnar Hansen's Leatherface leer and snarl and gibber as he drives home the titular chainsaw. We hear, albeit very subtly, the sickening sounds of death by powertool. But we do not SEE anything at all. Nope, you heard right ladies an' germs. Nothing. Viewers who feel cheated by this sad realisation may wish to direct themselves to the film's only true scene of gore. All Mr Hooper treats us to is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it closeup shot of silly old Leatherface dropping his gosh-darn chainsaw on his own leg and giving himself a deep-ish cut, (trombone and canned laughter). It is interesting to note that Hansen famously wore a makeshift body armour plate of cheap metal under his trousers for this scene, reflecting another virtue of the movie I will discuss soon. Violence in movies, it is often said, should never be glamourised or dwelt on. TXCM's most common criticism and the core component of its critics' argument is that it revels in violence. It is a horror film whose legendarily blood-soaked scenes of gore reflect lazy content. Why didn't the production crew fill the film with sinister creeping horror instead of shooting for vomit-inducing scene after scene of hacking, slashing and sawing? But Hooper spills not one drop of blood. All the gore and deaths are implied, with the exception of Teri McMinn's Pam whose gruesome kill on a meat hook is neatly obscured through shot design. Consequently the deaths are leant an extra-disturbing quality through their lack of visual climax. It's rather like watching a car crash but closing your eyes at the last minute. You do not want to see what happens, but thanks to human anatomy you can't cover your eyes and plug your ears all at once. A whole essay could be written on Hooper and Wayne Bell's sound design but, suffice to paraphrase Mark Gatiss "(TXCM) ...is a movie about what you hear, not what you see". So having covered the gore and subtlety misunderstanding, we move to another common view. Over the years TXCM's inescapable reputation has branded it a trashy exploitation flick. A lowest common denominator unintelligent shock piece. Ask any horror buff worth their salt about TXCM and they'll most likely launch into a long complex rant about what a hidden gem the movie is. Whether or not you like the fact that its reputation has shut out non-fans and made it an underrated classic in the mainstream, TXCM is an intelligent example of its genre. Upon watching the movie it is plain for any film fan to see that the direction, sound design, acting, cinematography and premise make it a highly effective and original horror flick. Such examples I would personally cite include Marilyn Burns's raw and uncommonly disturbing performance as Sally, the multiple layers of the "Dinner" scene, and in my opinion one of the the greatest pieces of physical acting ever: the "Chainsaw Dance". This, the film's last scene, is a beautifully crafted combination of TXCM's every positive element. Through the weird, compelling and uncompromisingly emotional movement of the dance Hansen and Hooper transform Leatherface. In a fit of emotion, the hideously ugly and clumsy brute suddenly and shockingly transcends almost every facet of his personality. In short: Leatherface finally gets to be graceful and emotional and very nearly human, but only via his horrendous failure of letting Sally escape. This wonderful piece of narrative introspection is brought to life through Hooper and Daniel Pearl's fluid realistic cinematography, Hansen's acting, and the jarring edit of the quick climax. I would recommend this scene as just about the most perfect example, with the requisite context, of how and why TXCM is a great movie. Finally, the most stunning fact about TXCM's production in relation to quality? The film was produced on a shoestring budget. Hooper made the movie with friends on a budget of $140,000, yet flat out refuses to let it show. The film does not acknowledge its cheapness and instead makes smart use of every piece of physical or intangible material it possesses. So there you have it. TXCM, a misunderstood masterpiece of horror cinema. It may not have the cinematographic prowess of Kubrick's "The Shining", the edge-of-the-seat suspense of Hitchcock's "Psycho" or the worthy allegorical heart of Romero's "Night of The Living Dead". But through its originality, fresh perspective on horror and shocking performances, TXCM has carved, (no pun intended), its place bloodily out in the annals of horror history. Like the titular tool, it is a sharp and highly effective thing designed to carry out a clear purpose with precision and quality: to horrify. NEXT TIME: "Starship Troopers" (1997) dir. Paul Verehoeven.

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

How very modern...

Two Bathrooms 

Twin Peaks (1990) The Shining (1980)

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

"This is the girl"

“Hey, pretty girl, time to wake up.”

― Mulholland Dr. (2001) dir. David Lynch

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

REVIEWED: "THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND" (2006)

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

REVIEWED: "THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND" (2006)

Yes, there has been a change of plan. Owing to writing constraints and me having watched other films more recently, we have a different first review.

At this point, in the year 2017, 11 years after TLKOS was made, I feel like it’s too easy to drop into the old movie journalism trope of saying “This was a very personal film for me”. The phrase brings to mind images of dusty old critics embalmed in their black polo necks, seeking to create some kind of anecdotal gravitas by telling you a connection they have to whatever film they’re writing on. In lieu of this, I’d like to tell you of two connections I have to this film. Both, (alongside curiosity and knowledge of its acclaim), were great influences in getting me to watch the movie. In other words, these connections have a point.

Firstly, my Dad went to school with Kevin Macondald. He knew Kevin relatively well and has often remarked on what an interesting person he already was even then before his career in film. Secondly, the great African dictator Idi Amin had always casually fascinated me after I was told my Mum saw him buying a pint of milk in Saudi Arabia during his exile. This truly weird and unique belittling of a man well known for his brutality and feared persona drove me to wonder: What was he really like?

“The Last King of Scotland” is not, as I myself believed at first glance, based on an entirely true story. It is an adaptation of Giles Foden’s 1998 modern historical fiction of the same name. It tells the story of a young Scottish doctor, (James McAvoy) who through both a chance encounter in the Ugandan countryside, and his nationality, becomes personal physician to President Idi Amin, (Forrest Whittaker). The narrative then tracks the twosome’s respective downfalls, Amin’s real life descent into paranoia and political nightmare after political nightmare, and Dr Garrigan’s imagined downfall brought on by Amin’s destructive lifestyle. The DVD blurb describes Garrigan being “…Blinded by his (Amin’s) decadence”, an apt description as the young man’s initial dreams of worthwhile and altruistic medical work are tainted into a whirlwind of free-spirited women, booze and parties.

While Whittaker and McAvoy dominate the screen for the most part, TLKOS hides a very effective and perhaps under-appreciated supporting cast. Gillian Anderson burns twice as bright but half as long, (given only bookended appearances at the beginning and end) as the conflicted but well-meaning wife to Adam Kotz’s Dr Merrit, Garrigan’s original boss. The warm chemistry between her and McAvoy is used cleverly by Macdonald to foreshadow Garrigan’s decadence when he attempts an affair with her behind Merrit’s back. Meanwhile Simon McBurney’s smarmy British diplomat Stone instils dread most effectively, coming off as a cross between Lost Highway’s Mystery Man and Michael from Mean Streets. Stone is a perfect secondary antagonist, one that is both willing to manipulate Garrigan for the government’s benefit all the while without a shred of compassion. The single-mindedness with which he constantly haunts and pesters Garrigan recalls Richard Romanus’s ever-present and quietly menacing mafioso in Scorese’s Little Italy. Last comes Kerry Washington in the roll of Kaye Amin, the dictator’s estranged and neglected wife of an epileptic son. With a startlingly accurate portrayal of the Ugandan accent and her character’s identity, Washington delivers a tragic and sensitive performance and works well alongside McAvoy. It is their joint story arch, somewhat predictable at first but improved as the story marches on, that makes the third act so shocking and edge-of-the-seat.

Concluding my views on TLKOS’s acting, I feel it would be pointless to shower as much praise on Forrest Whittaker’s Amin and McAvoy’s Garrigan as has already been written. Suffice to say that both are fantastic performances full of heart and stolid understanding of their respective characters motivations and identities. Though Whittaker may steal the show with what has been called “One of the great performances of modern movie history”, McAvoy is right there behind yet mostly beside him, delivering on every level one would expect of his character. Garrigan is fleshed out and deepened in tandem with Amin, yet McAvoy does not let this slow development hinder his performance.

Macdonald’s direction and Anthony Dod Mantle’s cinematography are sharp and on point. Interesting use is made of montage to convey both symbolism and build emotional and situational tension. Scenes are shot with an Alfonso Cuaron-ish clarity and realism, full of verisimilitude and appearing to place the viewer directly into the narrative and plot. The soundtrack and music often stands out with Alex Heffes’s score jumping from non-existent to full or raw passion and fury, (sometimes even with a beautifully authentic Ugandan and African flavour), with the speed and immediacy of a well oiled machine or highly trained dog.

THE VERDICT: A thoroughly enjoyable, thrilling and above all intelligent semi-fictional biopic that both entertains and introspects without losing any balance or misfiring too hard. The Last King of Scotland is a must watch for fans of Whittaker, McAvoy and proper “Good old fashioned” performance-driven cinema.

ACTING: 9/10

CINEMATOGRAPHY: 8/10

STORY (PLOT, NARRATIVE ETC.): 8/10

OVERALL: 8.8/10

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

THE DAWN OF MAN.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Directed by Stanley Kubrick

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

The first post...

No, not the bugle tune! That’s “The Last Post”, you at the back there! 

Note to self: Do not steal style from Lynch’s Comicon Greeting...

I’ve decided to start this blog to practice reviewing films and to give myself a platform to express my views on classic and modern films and filmmaking. We shall see where it takes me in time. Planned first review will be of “Get Carter” (1971) coming fairly soon. In the mean time I might reblog some stuff and just get used to the whole Tumblr platform, being unfamilliar with it as I am.