Films of the Month: June

 I've always enjoyed Ridley Scott's films greatly and he is one director I really admire. For one he is one of the few current directors who is openly apprehensive about the use of CGI in film, and tries to opt for more expensive set design where possible. He tries and achieves this to moderate extent in his new film Prometheus, a film which has been made to illustrate the background to the Alien films, which he had originally started more than 30 years ago.
 If you go into this film expecting an Alien movie then you might be disappointed, this film concentrates more on the theological discussion of Man's origins. It opens on the Earth thousands (possibly millions of years) earlier, as we see one of the much alluded to Space Jockey character seemingly self sacrifice himself on the Earth, we then advance to an archaeological dig in the year 2089 where a team discover cave painting in Scotland that seems to share similar features to other paintings across the world. The film then quickly advances for years, as a couple from this team, form a new ensemble of character on the ship Prometheus, where they aim to visit the destination depicted in these paintings. It is here we first meet David (Michael Fassbender) and Vickers (Charlize Theron) who are employees of the Weyland corporation (from the first two Alien movies) as well as the ships crew and scientists, who make up this research expedition. It is also quickly established that Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) has funded this exhibition after years of his own personal interest in man's origins, but his motives become more malevolent as the film progresses. So by this point of the film the background to both the Alien films and this film is formed.
 The rest of the film has similar sequences to the previous films, espescially Scott's own Alien, but the overall feel of the film is that it attempts to be viewed and understood at a higher level. It takes time trying to make the characters and the audience try and piece together the significance of their journey and what they are there to learn. This was the element of the film I really enjoyed, and I thought it did a good job in making it tie in with the original film as well as making a well constructed thesis of mankind's evolution. There is also a lot of ideas that are projected that aren't fully formed and are there for the viewer to think about on their own terms. There are also a few questions still left open by the end of the film, that are probably there in order for a sequel to be required.

 The film falls short though in other areas though, apart from Michael Fassbender, who is again sublime in a role as the expedition android, the rest of the cast are at times hit and miss. None more so than Noomi Rapace, whose delivery of lines sometimes comes across as a bit static, this may be due to her having only learnt English in the last few years. She isn't aided by the fact that her character is hard to fully connect with and is not a patch on Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley of the franchise. Charlize Theron looks the part as the corporate ice queen, who is seemingly more interested in her company's interest, than that of the scientific one. She is even at times quite good in the role, but I got the feeling that her character wasn't fully formed by the end of the movie and that something was missing. Other characters seem to be a mismatch of past cliché's from the Sci-fi horror genre and are hardly worth a mention. I will though say that I found Guy Pearce's make-up was a bit distracting in his role as Weyland. Back to Fassbender though who managed to have a great mix of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen's androids from previous films. This really worked well for a film where you were constantly questioning ideas, as well as seeing changing motives of characters, as Fassbender's motives and ideas were quite opaque throughout the film. There was also a great homage to Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia, which I also enjoyed.
 CGI is something I still struggle with in films, but I did feel for the majority of this film it was used in a non-gratuitous way, and the majority of it was used on the actual computers and interfaces the character's were using. Scott did a good job in trying to blend any other CGI he used with the set pieces he used, and this had the desired effect of not making the film look over the top and too advanced for it's setting. At times I felt Ridley Scott did go a bit too far with some of his idea's about life in 2089, and it was to be bordering on the realms of the absurd. He just about got away with it, but I found some of it a bit questionable. As for the action sequences they're okay, but nothing close to the first two Alien films, and the suspense is equally moderated. But as I've already suggested, this wasn't Ridley Scott's main aim with this film.

 The main thing I found hard to accept with the film was it's ending. Scott had the chance to do something a bit different here, and though I agree that ending it this way made one element of the film come together, it still would have worked better if he had been a bit more gutsy with it. Instead he decided to pander a bit to the audience's need for a conventional ending. Ultimately for me it just fell short of being something a bit special, though I still feel it's a good companion piece for the Alien universe. As prequels go though, this could have been a disaster, instead it's a decent effort and worthy of attention and even provokes some stimulating ideas, if a little undercooked.

 The Hoax is a film that seems to have already been banished to the realms of late night television. It's based on the true life events of Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) and his associate Richard Suskrind (Alfred Molina) as they conspire to write a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. They manage to get access to a lot of privy information along the way, as well as information from Hughes' long time employee Noah Dietrich (Eli Wallach). They are able to convince the publisher's MacGraw-Hill of the book's legitimacy, despite only using hand-written forged memo's from the recluse Hughes. There's also a great side story to this whole charade, as this was taking place during the time President Nixon was trying to cover up past dealings with Hughes in the run up to the '72 election and ultimately led to the Watergate affair. The film suggests that Hughes was orchestrating Nixon's paranoia by feeding information to Irving about their relationship, whilst at the same time distancing himself from the publication. This however is a problem with the film, as it seemingly takes to much license at times, and whilst the Nixon element makes for a good story, elements of it seem to be artistic license, other parts of the film are also quite far fetched, espescially describing Irving's personal life and own paranoia.

 I think the film was trying to be quite idiosyncratic by making Irving eventually demise into a paranoid wreck, in a similar vein to Nixon and indeed Hughes' own paranoia. For me it worked, but as I say it did feel like it was pure artistic license on Irving's behalf, as he probably didn't become that way. I regard Hughes as one the most enigmatic men of the 20th century and Richard Nixon is possibly one it's most complicated, therefore I found the film quite entertaining. It is strewn with flaws though and even a few plot holes here and there, it's hard deciphering fact from fiction in what's presented. For example it's is stated as fact that Nixon broke into Watergate in order to obtain a copy of the autobiography as he believed it to contain damaging information. Whilst I know Nixon was worried the DNC had incriminating information about him, I'm not convinced this unpublished book was it. I guess it's things like this that make for a better film and the overriding story is good enough to make this watchable.
 On a technical aspect the film is well paced and suits the narrative of the story. Richard Gere puts in one of his more impressive performances and Molina is solid, despite his character being portrayed as a bit of light comic relief, which again I found dubious. There was also support from the likes of Marcia Gay Harden and great method actors such as Stanley Tucci and Eli Wallach. As a film it works, and it's a shame that it has been somewhat forgotten, not least of all for Gere. I would probably watch this again at some point in the future, but it's not without it's problems.

                                                         

 Another forgotten film is Anglo-Irish Noir Odd Man Out, which centres on the story of an Irish Nationalist (James Mason) as he spends his last 24 hours on the run in Belfast after a botched heist job. A risqué piece for the time, and as such the IRA connotations are very implicit. In fact the only thing we know is that the heist is in order to fund Mason's group underground activities. Despite the censorship there is enough there for the viewer to read between the lines and have a clear understanding of what's going on. The film is directed by The Third Man's Carol Reed and has all the hallmarks of that classic, with long shadows through the dark streets of Belfast, that could have easily been Orson Welles on the streets of Vienna. Reed is without doubt a director of great ability, as he manages to transform this subverssive tale into an entertaining noir thriller. The streets of Belfast are presented as giant maze, and the intricacy of these roads and alleys add to the atmosphere.

 I really enjoy James Mason as an actor, and his performance here is again captivating and he is painted in a very sympathetic light, that I'm surprised it got past the censors. Robert Newton is also part of the cast, and gives his typically thespian performance similar to his role the following year as Bill Sykes in Lean's Oliver Twist. Whereas his performance worked in Oliver Twist, I found him to be a bit too over the top here. Though the rest of the cast was largely unknown to me I thought Fay Compton did a good job as the woman searching for her fugitive love (Mason) through the street of Belfast.
 The film is not quite The Third Man level of genius, but is a great precursor to that film, and is a great (if somewhat romanticised) insight into life as a Republican in Northern Ireland in that post-war period. It's another example of how good some of these less celebrated films can be.

                                                               

Bride of the Monster, was a film directed by the man often lauded as the "Worst Director Ever" Ed Wood. There is even a Tim Burton biopic based on the man and his notoriously bad films, which features segments about this film. Despite the film's awful reputation, I was hoping for something fun and entertaining, rather than just bad. The main problems with it are the quite ridiculous special effects, most notably a killer octopus, that is basically made up of both archive footage of a real octopus and a pathetic octopus prop that looks ludricrous. The acting, whilst at times is bad, isn't as atrocious as I was anticipating, and as such most of the film is easy to follow, along with a straight forward narrative. It was Bela Lugosi's last screen performance, and to be fair to the man, although hammy and over the top, it is the best performance in the film, and shows that the man did have some talent.
 I was expecting a bit more on the fun and entertaining side, and overall I don't think it's quite so bad it's good, but it definitely isn't as bad as the reputation that precedes it.

                                                           

 My next film was originally intended to be a Judy Garland project of the famed Irving Berling musical Annie Get Your Gun. Based on the real life of famed sharpshooter Annie Oakley, it had a very similar feel to Calamity Jane, especially in that they both starred Howard Keel, in fact his role in this film was his first film role. He was lucky to stay in the role due to a lot of production problems, not least of all Judy Garland being forced to pull out due to exhaustion, Betty Hutton was cast, even though I find it incredible that Ethel Merman wasn't even considered by MGM to reprise her Broadway role. It was also original assigned to musical legend Busby Berkley to direct, but he quite after Garland withdrew. I had not been familiar with Hutton, and having read a bit about her, it was easy to see why. She suffered a similar career decline to her co-star Keel, but he's decline was relatively tame in career to Betty's who suffered a series of severe mental health issues in the 60's and 70's.

 It's a shame as Hutton was obviously talented and her role here proves it. The role is obviously the blueprint as to what Doris Day copied for her signature role as Calamity Jane. Hutton gives a solid performance with her strong voice, good looks and grows into the role well. I think sadly, that retrospects will always compare her to Day, who has more charisma and a better voice in her turn as Calamity. It may have been interesting to see Garland in this role, but I feel Hutton is good, albeit she tends to over do it in places. Keel who was the male lead in both films, gives the first of his stereotypical leading musical man, which would sadly typecast him and stifle his career. I have a lot of time for him though, as his voice is superb, as well as that all important charm that was important for films like these. The chemistry between the two is good also, and again matches that of Keel with Day.
 The film is certainly good enough, with a fascinating (and surprisingly quite factual) story and a strong repertoire of songs (which is good as I'm not much of a fan of "There's No Business Like Showbusiness", the musical's most famous tune). It's only natural to compare it Calamity Jane, a film I really enjoy, but this is just as good, possibly better. I may even try to dig up a copy of Annie Oakley's autobiography, as she seems an incredible person with an interesting life.