A SERIOUS MAN

I went to see this with a couple of friends after a couple of disasters with our local cinema at first not showing it and then getting a copy that was damaged. Unless you live in a big city it seems even with a big multiplex that you're not guaranteed a 'little' film is gonna show at all let alone when it suits you. And when I say 'little film' I'm talking about a Coen Brothers film, yeah the Coen Brothers that won an oscar last year, it's ridiculous but unless you have giant fighting robots or the World being blown to bits or hormonal vampires it seems you're not what the public want to see. Honestly, I think Avatar will run on 15 screens until 2011, yet A Serious Man was only fleetingly on one screen at a time.



Anyway I got to see it and it was one of those films where I think the best part about the film is afterwards when thinking about it. I'm not saying that the film itself wasn't enjoyable. It had everything you expect from a Coen Brothers movie there were laughs all the way through, brilliant characters and really engaging drama and of course brilliant writing and direction. In terms of tone I'd place it about halfway between their kind of slapstick stuff like Burn After Reading or their more serious stuff like No Country for Old Men. In terms of genre it's probably a dark comedy but as with all of their films it's quite hard to define.

Anyway what I was saying about it being more impressive after the film has actually screened. Only a few films do this effectively and all the ones I can name are brilliant films so hopefully on repeated viewings the film will hold up well. As me and my mates came out we were discussing the film and what we thought it meant or was trying to say because it isn't obvious and if you need a definite ending this film is not for you. And if you need a definite ending you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself so really don't worry. As we discussed it the film clearly seemed to be saying different things to each of us and we debated what we thought. Only good films can do that, you can have a bad film with an open ending and it normally means people don't care enough to have that conversation. Anyway I went home and my mate heard somewhere it was a modern re-telling of the story of Job, which seemed to make a lot of sense. Whatever the meaning though the film was very enjoyable and I'd recommend it to anyone who likes intelligent film-making. And fans of the Coen Brothers. Those two groups are the same people aren't they?

DECADE'S END

Okay, so every magazine, newspaper and website out there is doing a round up of the noughties and as a blogger it would be rather remiss not to round up my favourite things of the last, and my first real decade*. I shall list my ten favourite albums and films of the last ten years, the omission of books is because my knowledge is too limited as I only really read older books.



Albums

Is This It? - The Strokes (2001)

Up the Bracket - The Libertines (2002)


A Rush of Blood to the Head - Coldplay (2002)


A Grand Don't Come for Free - The Streets (2004)

The Libertines - The Libertines (2004)

Sam's Town - The Killers (2006)

Empire - Kasabian (2006)


Because of the Times - Kings of Leon (2007)


Neon Bible - Arcade Fire (2007)


Oracular Spectacular - MGMT (2007)




Films


The Dark Knight



The Royal Tenenbaums



I'm Not There


Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang


The Departed


The Lord of the Rings Trilogy


Brick


No Country for Old Men


Old Boy


Little Miss Sunshine





* As in I don't remember 1990 but I definitely do remember 2000

THE INFORMANT!

Soderbergh's latest sees Matt Damon play a real-life FBI informant who claims his employer, ADM (a lycine-developing company) participates in a world-wide price-fixing scandal. The film never attempts to make the agricultural business glamorous or exciting, in fact the opposite as we hear the thoughts of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) who early in the film never stops talking about the business, which instead of making us interested in his interests makes us interested in him. Matt Damon is made up to look like an average guy, he has a flimsy 'tache, a paunch and an awful haircut. This image, alongside his self-important observations and frequently bizarre behaviour are what make the film.

As a documentation of a true story the film would be a massive fail. We only see the perspective of Whitacre and that is interrupted by his many asides and meanderings on other subjects. What the film succeeds in doing is creating a character that is wholly unsympathetic and yet you sympathise with him anyway. He's a lot like Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo. A pathetic selfish man whose initial scheme completely unravels and ends up ruining them more than they could possibly have perceived. That tragic streak is perhaps what makes the character sympathetic. But Soderbergh plays Whitacre as comic over tragic and with Matt Damon's performance that is achieved. The film does have other characters but Damon's performance is the only performance of the movie.

I found the film entertaining. It fits into that category of comedy that The Office, Extras and Curb Your Enthusiasm share, comedy that makes you cringe as the character fucks up again. Damon is brilliant and should put in more comedic roles in the future as it is clear from his interviews that he is a funny guy. Empire in their review criticise the film as unsubstantial and I guess I agree. That would be my sole complaint in a film where Damon's excellent performance, the direction and score are all hard to criticise. I enjoyed it, I laughed, but it didn't really require me to think and it certainly hasn't made much of an impact on my thoughts since I saw the film. Erm, okay, pithy last line...pithy last line..."Fun but a little flimsy"

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

I'd like to start this post by first saying that I am a fan of Spielberg (the director), I think his best films are close to being my favourites for their respective genres especially E.T, Schindler's List, Jaws, Jurassic Park and both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. However, I don't like Spielberg (the person). I find in most the interviews with him, even ones that are clearly in love with the guy he comes off as arrogant and seems to believe all the genius hype. This becomes even more clear when an interviewer has the balls to make a criticism over one of his films. I watched a programme where he was interviewed by the majorly opinionated Mark Kermode who suggested that Munich was flawed due to its over-the-top dedication to seeming even-handed. Spielberg completely changed and became guarded and clearly became colder towards Kermode after that. In a separate incident there was a pullout in an issue of Empire Magazine dedicated to Spielberg with lots of saccharine praise from friends and co-workers and so on. I think it was George Lucas though, who revealed a well-known actor auditioning for a role in Raiders commented that he loved the director's movies but hadn't enjoyed 1941. Apparently Spielberg had him immediately removed.



Anyway I realise this is a massively long introduction that doesn't seem to have that much to do with the title but I watched Temple of Doom the other day and I liked it more than I remembered. It is still by some distance the worst film of the trilogy but it is watchable fare. The action scenes, particularly the mine cart chase and the mid-flight dinghy escape, are exciting and well directed if a little on the ludicrous side. Indiana Jones is still a likable hero.

So what is wrong with the film?

Well, I'm going to leave aside the racism that seems more in keeping with the film's period than the period the film was made. Spielberg has confessed the film is weaker, (Spielberg the humble!) but blamed that on George Lucas's insistence that the film be darker. Now, George Lucas is an idiot who I don't believe has done anything right since 1980 but I'm going to stick up for him. Lucas is the father of the 'darker' sequel. He is the reason why every awful Spiderman sequel gets billed as being "darker" (read -emoed/ emo'd/ whatever). He made Empire Strikes Back. He had the balls to make it darker and it really worked. It was only natural that he suggest, in the second big trilogy he was involved in, to make the film "darker".

The problem is Spielberg doesn't seem to have the guts to go full out. Do you know how when skidding you should turn into the skid rather than away. And do you know that sporting phrase if you don't go in hard then you get hurt. Well I think that's what happened, the film was hurt not by the fact it was darker, but the lack of commitment to that tonal change. Spielberg tried to turn against the skid and that is where the film (replacing a car in this lame analogy) crashes. It's the parts of the film that are clearly supposed to lighten the tone and keep the kids happy amidst all the heart-stealing-voodooish-stuff and blank-eyed chanting. Willie (played by Spielberg's wife Kate Capshaw - *ahem*) is easily in my list of the most annoying fictional characters ever created. After Karen Allen as a likable rogue tomboy who manages to be both tough and sexy in Raiders we get a shrieking, idiotic, sexist charicature of a woman. Do I become a hypocrite of complaining about her sexist representation by then adding she's not nearly hot enough to forgive her prima-donna bullshit? Yes? Then taking looks clearly out of the picture she is a horrendous character. Added to that is Short Round and his opposite number the Sultan kid, it's late and I can't be bothered to look up his name. Both are annoying and ridiculous in equal degrees. First, Short Round, a poor kid from China who is so au fait with American culture he sports a Yankees cap and talks about fortune cookies - an American invention. His cutesy copying of Jones gets more and more grating as the film goes on. The Sultan kid, who Spielberg portrays negatively thoughout is redeemed at the end after a ridiculous pantomime villain perfomance stabbing a voodoo doll merely because he is a child. There seems to be no reason for him being a child except so that he can fight Short Round.

Okay so my point is, the film isn't thaaaaat bad but its flaws aren't, as Spielberg believes, down to flabby George Lucas, but because of the cutesy, kiddie-appealing bits that have been ruining Lucas and Spielberg films for the last few decades. (See Ewoks, Jar-Jar Binks, Gophers, Greedo shoots first, removing cops guns etc etc)

MEXICAN RESTAURANTS

The latest restaurant to take residence in the doomed building that has housed the failing Outback and Square is Mexican franchise Chiquitos. Before I went there I felt no real sense of excitement as Mexican food has become kind of a standard meal at home. Fajitas, Tacos, Nachos, Burritos are all so easily made at home now and, with the Discovery brand, actually taste good. I went to the restaurant and had both the burrito and fajitas, neither was as good as the ones I can make with a cheap box from the supermarket.

Only five years ago there was a real gap for Mexican restaurants. You couldn't get good mexican food at supermarkets, and in Stevenage there were no restaurants doing the food. When in London you could get it and it tasted good but I'm pretty sure a large part of that was the novelty of it. You weren't thinking I could go home and cook better than this for 2 or 3 quid. I don't think Chiquito's will last that long here, it seems with the restaurants that are staying open people either want fast food, takeaway, or a more upmarket restaurant like Prezzo or Ask. These themed, average priced restaurants that serve up average food just dressed up as if its from its country of origin look a bit flimsy in times where people are looking at value more than ever.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Went to see it last night and I was not disappointed. I was excited by the trailer. It indicated that just because the film was for children did not mean it would be any less of a Wes Anderson film. I laughed more than I have for any adult comedy I can remember seeing at the cinema recently. The deadpan delivery and quirky comedy remains similar to his early films but the combination is yet to tire me.

Jason Schwartzman as Ash, Fantastic Mr. Fox's son, is basically playing the role he perfected in Rushmore but is the highlight of a film that moves quickly and effortlessly to its finale. His jealousy of cousin Kristofferson holds the biggest emotional pull of the film. Other mentions should go to the characters of Kylie the possum (Wally Wolodarsky) and the rat (Willem Dafoe) who steal most of the good lines after Ash.

It's the type of film I wish had been around when I was a kid, a film I could love then but then look back to as an adult and find it even better, and not just for nostalgia's sake. It's also the type of film that I would force my future kids to like to try and shape them into mini versions of me. I guess that's as big a compliment I can give.

LES FLEURS DU MAL

Last week I finished reading Baudelaire's lengthy collection of poems. Well, what I read was the latest edition, kind of like a ultimate edition dvd of a movie that's been out for decades but they keep on adding, I don't know, a ten-minute interview, so all the mugs have to buy the thing for a ultimate price. It had the original french text as well as the "new" english translation with far too many notes. The poems themselves didn't quite live up to my expectations bar a few notable exceptions. Une Charogne or A Carcass is a rather obvious favourite but I found it to encapsulate the best of Baudelaire's work in one poem:

-And you, in your turn, will be rotten as this:

Horrible, filthy, undone,

O sun of my nature and star of my eyes,

My passion, my angel in one!

It got all the morbid, provocative stuff that Baudelaire's infamous for but, unlike some of the lesser poems in the book, maintained a message and truth rather than feeling like mere attempts to outrage. In fact the poem felt close to the best Smiths songs, those that deal with miserable subjects but are lit with a, albeit twisted, glint of optimism. Beauty amidst the drudgery. Light at the the end of Moz's darkened underpass. I don't think I can fairly comment on Baudelaire as I think that poetry, much more so than novels or plays, really suffers in the translation for, in my opinion, the dense sentences of Proust or Genet seem more poetic than the sometimes clumsily translated (especially where the translation is attempting to keep Baudelaire's rhyme structure) Flowers of Evil .