Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Sunday, 16 November 2008

W.

What can I say? After the history-defining achievement of Barack Obama on November 4, the era of George W. Bush seems not just ideologically irredeemable but also passé in broad cultural terms. For a European liberal living through his period in office, at the time it seemed like a bad farce scripted by a committee of reactionary Hollywood hacks who cared little for consequences, reason, and nuanced arguments in the grand American tradition of Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson. Not so much the End of History to borrow Francis Fukuyama's notorious phrase, but the end of empire. That familiar fetid odour of decay and indifference that we have been living with these past eight years rises strongly in Oliver Stone's film W.

Though the hanging chads of Florida helped him steal the election from Al Gore, the very fact that George W. Bush was close enough in terms of votes to do so was almost inexplicable to those of us east of the Atlantic. Surely, even Republican voters held the Office of the President in some kind of respect and dignity? Admittedly, Clinton had both literally and metaphorically despoiled it for them during his second term; but Bush himself appeared not much more than a marginally brighter brother of Forrest Gump. His grasp of the English language was poor, his communication skills crass, his conceptual and historical knowledge limited, and his manner snickeringly boorish. Stone's W seeks to pinpoint such a dreadful eventuality on the well-argued premise that middle America preferred a buddy to a leader, uncomplicated gut instinct to shades of grey, and confidently unwavering faith to secular openness. John McCain tried to use Sarah Palin to repeat the trick, but the voters by then had all seen the results of that choice.

Surprisingly for an Oliver Stone film, there are no JFK-style revelations, no Nixon-style corruption. George W. Bush merely meanders back and forth through the Proustian structure of his own biopic, a wounded brash moron (I use that term without insult) working through crippling Oedipal issues and preyed upon by the three Neo-Con Furies of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rove. A few critics feel Stone pulls his punches, but he works with what's there. Savage satire or dark tragedy no longer feels appropriate. There is nothing at stake in the film: the time of influence has passed. Bush has had his day. Ennervation and the awkwardly comic is the prevailing tone. So 9/11 is felt only in its aftermath, not in the infamous shock and lack of direction on the dreadful day. Condoleezza Rice perhaps comes out of it the worst: in a remarkable physical transformation Thandie Newton nails her as diffident, simpering and entirely without the geo-political steely nous that she is alleged to possess. The Neo-Cons ogle, cow and dominate her in what you pray has to be traductions of Oval Office strategic meetings. Rice's reputation suffers more as we are unsurprised by their craven, sexist, empire-building nature: like the narrative of the Bush years itself, weary familiarity has somehow dulled our outrage.

At the centre, Josh Brolin is disturbingly good as Bush. Empathetic, he struts and frets his time upon the screen, embodying this tragic tale of an idiot who successfully battles alcoholism, paternal disapproval, and his own direction-less indolence, but simply cannot cope in a role that he is entirely unequipped and unsuitable for. Reinforced by the final image of him in an empty stadium waiting to catch a baseball that never comes, Stone says that in effect is the reality of the Bush years: an unfortunately devastating cosmic joke played upon us and him.

Tellingly, the trailer for Frost/Nixon which preceded W somehow seems much more urgent, much more weighty and even contemporary in a way that W really isn't any more. The lessons of a weak President and the bankrupt philosophy of the Right have hopefully now been well-learnt.

Friday, 9 November 2007

the stage of fancies tragedye

I succumbed. Despite the reviews, the poor American box office, and even my own judgement, a moment of nostalgia for the literature of the Elizabethan period (and my erstwhile academic career) prompted me to catch Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the second of the Cate Blanchett-starring MTV-ersatz biopics directed by Shekhar Kapur. While the 1998 film dealt with the young Elizabeth I grappling with her new role as queen and the internal politics of a theologically-divided England, this latest project concentrates on her late middle age and international relations.

This time Kapur plays even more fast and loose with history, as William Nicholson and Michael Hirst's script seeks to draw a parallel between the contemporary western clash with Islamic fundamentalism and the 16th century Catholic anti-Reformation. However, its lack of seriousness is typified by the laughably creepy Philip II of Spain (complete with a ludicrous spindly walk stolen wholesale from John Cleese) as the film makes no real attempt to explore the complexities of the theological and ontological dialectics, other than position Catholic Spain as a sinister reactionary foe against which Elizabeth must test herself and secure English freedom. Mary Queen of Scots fares little better, being reduced to a duplicitous and rather snide cameo in which the wonderful Samantha Morton frankly steals the film. There are a few attempts to touch upon the uses of torture, internment and the business of national security in the Machiavellian dealings of Sir Francis Walsingham (played again by Geoffrey Rush), but they are brief, under-developed and instead work much better to portray how families of the period were brutally divided by these issues, forced into betrayals, exile or cowardly silence.

Perhaps what disappointed most was the reduction of Sir Walter Ralegh (Clive Owen, gamely channelling The Horse Whisperer) from a guileful, scholarly, politico-adventurer to west country bit of rough and inventor of the baked potato. In keeping, his considerable poetic skill is now no more than feeble chat-up material which Elizabeth (55 years-old at this point) cannot resist. It's a sad fate for the cunningly imaginative writer of the 'Ocean to Scinthia' and The Discoverie of the Large and Bewtifull Empire of Guiana, and a seriously misguided attempt to replicate the narrative of Elizabeth and Leicester's romance in the earlier film, doing major injustice not just to the historical figures but the actors as well. Ralegh's far more intriguing relationship with Bess Throckmorton (see instead the excellent biography of her by Anna Beer) that broke taboos of status, court and contemporary religious ethics is also now sidelined into the minor part of a ménage-a-trois. History necessarily tweaked, we have the further head-scratching occurrence of sea-dog Ralegh charging in, like Bruce Willis from the Die Hard series, to guide Sir Francis Drake when the Armada eventually appears (despite playing no part in the actual engagement). The CGI battle that provides the climax to the film is admittedly a stupendous spectacle, but at its heart is an absurd and wholly unexamined jingoism that leaves a very peculiar taste.

One was just left with the feeling that there were several great films here: unfortunately none of which actually got made.

Friday, 2 November 2007

Blame It On Fidel

Amongst the many film offerings of this bountiful season, one small gem currently playing at the Renoir and ICA outshines nearly all. The feature debut of Julie Gavras, Blame It On Fidel. Set in the Paris of 1970-73 (from the death of de Gaulle to the murder of Chilean President Salvador Allende) it is ostensibly the coming-of-age story of nine-year old Anna, as her family transform themselves from privileged bourgeois professionals to radical leftists. Based on the novel Tutta colpa di Fidel by Domitilla Calamai and filtered through the childhood experiences of Gavras herself (daughter of noted political auteur Costa-Gavras), what sets the work apart is not just an astonishing central performance by Nina Kervel-Bey as the implacable Anna (defiant at the unwanted changes to her comfortable lifestyle), but the very human way in which political theory collides with personal reality. Shot entirely from Anna's perspective, the film subtly documents the clash between her own self-regarding catholic conservatism and the effects of her parents' new liberal passions for the Allende cause in Chile, the anti-Franco movement in Spain and the rise of feminism within France. At times comic, poignant and indignant, the film never mocks Anna's concerns, nor stoops to ridicule her parents as feckless individuals, but gently teases out their individual flaws and their individual longings as Anna grows towards a greater wisdom and knowledge of the world. The film's political heart is just as sure, negotiating the complexities of idealist Chilean revolutionaries with refugees from Castro's Cuba (from which of course the title derives). Beautifully photographed and with terrific period detail, this astute work deserves wide attention. Go see!