The Queen x Hannibal Lectre: Hitchcock

I believe Hitchcock has been missold.

The film's advertising makes it look like a film about the making of Psycho with a little bit of Helen Mirren grousing in the background. Where, in reality, it's a domestic comedy with some shots from Psycho in the background. And Helen Mirren doesn't grouse- she snarks.

I should say that Helen Mirren is fantastic. As is Hopkins, but he has the much easier role, playing a character that lots of people are eminently familiar with anyway (although, I was surprised how few of my friends have actually seen a Hitchcock film). She's energetic and amiable and witty and, dare I say, kinda hot? The scene where she's picking out a swimming costume is kinda...titillating.

Moving on.
The drama is almost entirely about the relationship between Hitchcock and his wife, Alma; I think this may be because the making of Psycho was relatively smooth. I know there were problems with censorship, and financing (nothing more fun to watch than people argue money!), but from what I understand these are trivial compared to what some film shoots go through.

So, the making of Psycho serves as a backdrop to an exploration of marriage; and, even then, it's not particularly crucial to that exploration. The problems between Hitchcock and Alma don't stem from him being 'obsessed with murder' as the trailer insinuates, but merely from them both aging. And these problems are intriguing, but almost entirely because of the performances, not the content. Although, I should say, that the film is well-scripted; Mirren and Hopkins are both amusing, but I doubt they improvised the entirety of their lines.

What I think is interesting about the Psycho element of the picture is that it could have been the backdrop to two different films on topics that interest me: one about censorship, and how someone has to stand up to the man for things to change, and homophobia in Hollywood (Anthony Perkins, who played Norman Bates, was closeted, and the film has definite transphobic elements). Both of these ideas are touched upon, but briefly, and they clearly don't concern the director.

So, what you get is a well-played drama/comedy about marriage in old age with some take-it or leave-it references to classic cinema. It's a lot of fun, but it's too middle-of-the-road to be memorable; somewhat ironic, given the film's sections about pushing the envelope in what could be seen on screen and what made Psycho so influential in pop culture.

P.S. The film kept on saying that Hitchcock never won an oscar, but didn't Rebecca win best picture? I know it's not an award to him personally, but it's still a lot more than most people will ever be recognised.

Whatta lotta watta: The Impossible

I saw The Impossible yesterday.

And I have some issues. For example, the film starts by assuring us that this is a 'true story', not even 'based on a true story', just two words- 'true story'. The problem? The original family were Spanish, not British. I don't see why they did this. Well, actually I do, I just wish I didn't; a non-English speaking family just wouldn't be as palatable. People wouldn't go and see a film where the protagonists aren't anglophones because they wouldn't identify with characters who speak a different language than them (or, so Hollywood assumes, at any rate). This is also presumably why the film doesn't focus on the damage to local communities- we never see any Thai people looking for their loved ones (though, in fairness, there are some Asian children on the Orphanmobile), or any in the hospital: it's all European tourists. The Thai are relegated to nurses, doctors and random villagers who, for no given reason, were completely unaffected by the tonnes of water that just washed across their country. They aid the white protagonists then vanish, nary a thought being given to the fact that, although our protagonists can escape as soon as they regroup, these poor souls are stuck in the ravaged country. Hooray!

Also, I thought that Tom Holland, who played eldest son Lucas, was just awful. He just shouted when it was dramatic and deadpanned the rest of the time. I didn't believe he was in the midst of a crisis: he just looked like he was bored.

Finally, I don't know why this story in particular was chosen to be told out of all the countless tales that must have arisen from the 2006 tsunami. It didn't strike me as particularly dramatic- one half of the family spent the entirety of the story in a hospital, the other on various motor vehicles. They weren't searching for each other for comparatively long (we see several other families seeking each other who haven't reunited by the time the Bennets have, so we know they weren't searching the longest), and honestly, they didn't strike me as particularly captivating people- they weren't dislikable, but there was nothing memorable or even very defined about their personalities. (They weren't even white!) So, why this particular group of people? Because their story had a happy ending? Surely, other stories must have? Or, at least, a bittersweet one? I feel kinda bad, because these are real people I'm talking about, but for the drama I almost wanted this film to have a sting in the tail, and for the mother to die. I know, I know, that's awful, and, obviously, I don't wish death on the real life woman, but it would have been more interesting to watch. To be honest, the majority of the film just felt like filler between the set piece of the water hitting and the emotional climax when the Bennets are re-united.

On the plus side, the film didn't shy away from showing dirt and, perhaps more importantly, injury- the wound on the back of Naomi Watts' leg made me want to vomit. The glamorous stars are made to look thoroughly unsexy, despite flashing both bosom and abdominals. And even if the story isn't particularly cinematic, the design of the movie is, with scores of mussed up extras milling about, looking destitute (which just kept peaking my interest in characters other than the designated protagonists).
I should also mention the recreation of the tsunami which is both breath-taking and terrifying: I honestly don't know how they did it, because it doesn't look CGI, and I swear they must have actually just crashed a tidal wave down on Ewan McGregor and co, because there are shots of them being pelted by the water which don't cut away.

All in all, there was obviously some talent behind the scenes on the film, but the problems created by focussing on the Bennets outweighed the highlights.

No afterlife for Russel Crowe: Les Miserables

So, I've just come back from seeing Les Miserables for a second time, and whilst walking back, singing 'Can you hear the people sing?', I had a startling relevation: had I not seen the stage musical many a time, had I not in fact committed every single detail of it to memory like some horrid stalker, I think that it would probably have been one of my favourite films of all time.

The acting is undeniably incredible: Anne Hathaway almost made me cry, twice now. It's a performance which you couldn't give in a theatre, because no one would be able to hear you. On film, it's intoxicating, watching a woman's face, projected 30 foot large, spiral into grief and noticing every single flicker of emotion. Hugh Jackman is Jean Val Jean through and through- he is utterly hateful at the beginning, and entirely repentant by the end, finding time to be heroic, clingy and preachy in the middle. Even Russel Crowe, by far the film's weakest element, has genuine hate in his eyes when he looks on Jackman- one wonders if he isn't a little pissed he is no longer the most eminent Aussie on the block.

The staging is suitably epic, including mountain tops, cavernous ships and life-size porcelain elephants. When I first saw the film, I remarked that it seemed the students had a barricade about six feet in length and had blocked off only the street where they all lived, which seemed rather self-defeating, and not worth the army's trouble. Upon rewatching, it's a much grander affair: the scene where the furniture rains down from the sky is mesmerising, and the homespun nature of the blockade didn't diminish the splendour, but enhanced it (I don't know why this is only on the second viewing, I knew perfectly well the story and themes going in the first time). Also, full marks for the sewer scene, which makes a point of never forgetting what a sewer is: I always got confused watching films as a child when characters would crawl through sewers, and just seemed to slosh through water, never once needing to retch from the stench.

And, of course, the music is Rousing. It stirs something primal in human beings- the audience with whom I saw Les Mis applauded both times, and it's because the end song just demands it. (As does, sidebar, One Day More, and I have, both times, delivered a solitary sitting ovation to that song.) The music gets into your blood and takes over your heart beat: it becomes the pulse by which you live your life. It is the universal metronome which we all ignore because we're so used to it, but rendered so presently that we cannot help but sit up and pay attention.
And this is where the film is caught short, because that music is simply better live. As is most music. To hear Hathaway sob through 'I dreamed a dream' is a unique joy, but it simply cannot beat hearing a chorus of unknowns- really, almost any chorus of unknowns- mumble through 'do you hear the people sing', and especially its reprise, a few feet away on the local am-dram stage because that music is just so all-encompassing, and being in the same room as it is just exquisite. Am I gushing? I don't care. That is some of the best music ever composed- and it comes with stirring lyrics! Who could ask for anything more?
To be in the same space as someone putting their all into that score (and it is a score which, like any great schoolteacher, demands one's all) is a beautiful, beautiful thing. I don't doubt for one moment that the entire cast of Les Mis the movie were giving it their utmost, and it does show, honest to God it does, but unless they're going to tour around the world and give us all a personal viewing to their performance, their film will always play second fiddle to any live showing of this musical.

As I said, had I not known the stage show previously, I would have been swept up in Les Mis mania and even now be using even more superlative language to try and force the world to go and see it. But sadly, it lives in a shadow- a huge shadow, yes, and one which allows a lot of room for growth, but a shadow nonetheless.
Nice try, Tom. Better luck next time.

P.S. Kate Fleetwood delivers a stellar performance as 'Random Factory Bitch'- I had never previously heard of her, and, indeed, had to look her up on IMDB; she just infused 'At the end of the day' with so much malice.

I just wish there were an Oscar for Best Actor/Actress in an Utterly Minor Role. Keep it up, Kate.

Why?

So, this is a new blog I've made where I will mainly be reviewing movies. Why have I done this? A) The point of The Wizard in Oz is to detail my adventures in Australia; it has a defined and finite purpose, which does not include reviewing movies; B) there may come a time where I have to provide proof of my reviewing prowess, and I can point people to this blog, without them having to wade through posts about that time I got really drunk at Milly's and C) I love movies, have a lot of opinions about them, and all my friends are sick of hearing from me. So, I give myself up to the uncaring void of the web, and let my tiny, whiny voice echo off the cavernous edges of it. So, that's why I'm here. Why are you here? Ask yourself that.