How 'The Devil Wears Prada' Transformed Careers

Posted by Should I See It on Saturday, February 27, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





So what do you remember most about The Devil Wears Prada? Meryl Streep’s delicious performance? The clothes? New York? Simon Baker without a shirt on?


Or maybe it's the aftermath of this intelligent blockbuster that you remember most? Now you know who Emily Blunt is, and you watch The Mentalist every week and you secretly hope Stanley Tucci will walk away with the Academy Award in a few weeks time.

What ever you liked or didn't like about it, you can't help but notice that after this film the careers of the leading cast members took a turn for the better.

I call it 'The Devil Wears Prada Effect.' Symptoms include increased publicity, more widespread roles, becoming a 'bankable' name, and having greater attention focused on the actor's career. Side effects may include, but are not limited to, above the title billing, increased interest in the actor's personal life and an increase in nominations and awards.

I am in no way suggesting that these actors were nobodies before this film, but rather we can plot a definate upwards trajectory in their careers that got it's boost from The Devil Wears Prada.






 EMILY BLUNT

Now, be honest: Who here had heard of Emily Blunt before she literally stole every scene in The Devil Wears Prada??? Anyone????? Now she does have an impressive list of credits pre-Prada, including a Golden Globe Award for her role in British miniseries Gideon’s Daughter, but Prada sky-rocketed her from relative unknown to the hottest property in young Hollywood.

Prada gave Blunt’s career the attention her talent deserves. She has graduated into and ‘above the title’ actress and has had quite a few nominations for her work in The Young Victoria.

It’s actually hard to believe Hathaway got an Academy Award nomination before her.





ANNE HATHAWAY



Okay, so Anne Hathaway is probably the actor in this list least impacted by The Devil Wears Prada Effect. Hathaway had a pretty good career behind he; She was already well known and a marketable name in Hollywood. But Prada allowed her to move beyond the teeny bopper roles like The Princess Diaries in to more adult territory (yes, I know she was in Brokeback Mountain, but who remembers her in that?!). Since Prada, Hathaway was nominated for an Academy Award in 2009 for Rachel Getting Married as well as winning a number of independent and critics choice awards for that performance.









STANLEY TUCCI



For Tucci, great roles have never been a problem. He has an impressive list of credits and awards including two Emmys Two Golden Globes and an Independent Spirit Award amongst others.

Stanley Tucci has never been the sort of bankable name the way Streep and Hathaway are. He has flown under the radar, while delivering performances worthy of attention.

His turn as over worked/ underappreciated designer Nigel in The Devil Wears Prada is almost like Tucci’s career; great performances, but not widely recognised.

Last year, Tucci delivered great performances in both Julie & Julia and The Lovely Bones. In fact, the journalists predicting the likely candidates for the Academy Awards were torn between which of the two performances would be recognised. Tucci actually scored his first Academy Award nomination for The Lovely Bones.




SIMON BAKER



The Devil Wears Prada is one of the highlights of Simon Baker’s otherwise lacklustre resume. Apart from LA Confidential and season one of The Guardian, there are some pretty embarrassing films on there (Affair of the Necklace, Something New).

His performance in Prada as devilishly charming writer Christian Thompson was (more than likely) responsible for him landing the role of devilishly charming fake psychic Patrick Jane on The Mentalist.

For his work on The Mentalist, Baker has been nominated for an Emmy, a Screen Actors Guild Award and a Golden Globe, as well as receiving the coveted title of Sexiest Man on Television.





MERYL STREEP



Yes, even Queen Meryl makes this list. Oh I know she had like thirteen Academy Award nominations before Prada, and is widely recognised as one of the greatest actresses of all time, but I don’t think we should over look the impact of Prada.

Not only did The Devil Wears Prada introduce Streep to a new generation of cinema goers (trust me, Out of Africa was not high on any teenagers must watch list), but it also launched something of an Academy Award nomination spree: three nominations in the last four years (including her work in Prada). And after the massive box office success of Mamma Mia!, it is suddenly hip to be Meryl Streep.














Crazy Heart Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, February 25, 2010 , under | comments (0)





Film: Crazy Heart
Director: Scott Cooper
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhall, Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell
Plot: A fading country singer, Bad Blake, grapples with his alcohol addiction, especially after he meets Jean and her young son Buddy.

I went to see Crazy Heart only because I want to see the performance that is going to win Jeff Bridges the Academy Award.

Well, let’s start off by saying, Jeff Bridges is good. He is very good. He inhabits the role, right down to the physical aspect.

But I couldn’t help feeling like he was playing Mickey Rourke, if Mickey Rourke was a country singer instead of an actor.

Colin Farrell also makes an appearance as fellow country singer (but the far more successful) Tommy Sweet. He manages to do quite a bit with not very much screen time.

One point worth mentioning is that both Farrell and Bridges do their own singing. And I have to admit they both have good voices. And I am not just talking about “they can sing.” What is actually impressive is that “they can sing country!” and sound authentic without being overly nasal or whiny.



Now country music is not exactly my idea of a great time, but the original songs composed by T-Bone Brunett, Stephen Bruton and Ryan Bingham are surprisingly not annoying. Actually, they are quite beautiful, particularly ‘The Weary Kind’ which is one of the front runners to win the Academy Award for Best Original Song.

I can appreciate the performance of Bridges. I can appreciate what it means dor an alcoholic to say ‘I want to get sober’. But I could not connect with this film or its characters.

I don’t really have sympathy for Bad. He continues to drink without trying to change his situation. (He drinks so much in the film that within the first ten minutes I was seriously concerned about the state of his insides).



I don’t understand the relationship between Jean and Bad. I actually don’t understand her actions at all. It is implied that her ex-husband was an alcoholic, and yet she willingly takes Bad into her home, heart and bed, and then is upset when it backfires on her.

The most likeable character ends up being Jean’s four-year old son, Buddy.

I know that these judgements say more about me as a person, than it does about the film itself, but for me part of what makes a good film is for it to allow the audience to be emotionally invested in the characters and the film’s outcome. If I don’t care about the characters, then I don’t care for the film.



Should I See It?

Hmmm. Only if you’re interested in seeing Jeff Bridges performance. Otherwise, skip it.




 
Crazy Heart Official Site here.

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, February 22, 2010 , under , , , | comments (1)



Percy Jackson Lightning Thief Logan Lerman Brandon T Jackson Alexandra Daddario Pierce Brosnan Sean Bean Uma Thurman Chris Columbus


Film: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
Director: Chris Columbus
Plot: A teenager discovers he's the descendant of a Greek god and sets out on an adventure to settle an on-going battle between the gods
Starring: Logan Lerman, Brandon T Jackson, Alexandra Daddario, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Uma Thurman.







If JK Rowling and CS Lewis ever had a love child, I imagine it would have turned out something like Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

You really can’t help but compare it to either of them, especially Harry Potter: there are too many similarities in the plots and the conundrums that the heroes face.

Also the cinematic realisation of the two are incredibly similar, probably because the director of Percy Jackson, Chris Columbus, also directed Harry Potter 1 and 2.

Actually I would say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a better FILM that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone*, because it is better acted, better paces and (a little) more imaginatively shot. It’s almost as if Percy Jackson is what Chris Columbus intended to do with Potter 1&2 but didn’t quite get there.



I know I’m not exactly the target audience for Percy Jackson, but I enjoyed it. It’s not fantastic or ground breaking cinema, but it is very good for what it is: an enjoyable, special effects laden two hours (and that is not intended to be demeaning in any way).

Of course there are few problems with the film that come along with this genre and adapting from a novel.

The opening scenes feel a bit rushed; almost as if there was a lot stuff from the book that they didn’t put in (I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know if that was the case, but that’s what it felt like). Once it got past the awkward opening, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a well paced film.

The plot is a little but silly: Someone has stolen Zeus’ lightning bolt and he thinks Percy Jackson, son of Poseidon, has taken it. You can pick who the lightning thief is very early on (hint, it’s not Percy Jackson). Your kids might not pick it though. I guess this brings us to the crux of the matter. Percy Jackson is a kid’s film, but it is by no means painful for the parents to sit through.



The quest of this story is somewhat confused. While the film is called Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, the hero’s (self imposed) quest is not to find the lightning thief, but to find Percy’s mother, who has been kidnapped by Hades and taken to the underworld, in exchange for the stolen lightning. Percy thinks that once Hades realises he doesn’t have the lightning, Hades will let his mother go. In fact it never actually occurs to Percy and Co. to find out who the lightning thief is to put a stop to the war of the gods. It is a bit of a lightning bolt moment for Percy (pardon the pun) when her realises that all he has to do is return the lightning bolt to Zeus. Meanwhile the audience is thinking: ‘Duh! That’s what I thought this movie was about!’

Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson) is an appealing hero. He is a better actor than Daniel Radcliffe, and looks and sounds an awful lot like Zac Efron. I can’t really say anything beyond that about the performances (except Catherine Keener was awful; she made no effort to look interested in any of the scenes she was in) because it’s really not that type of movie. The movie is really about an adventure, as long as the plot keeps moving and the special effects keep coming, every one’s happy.



When exiting the cinema, I was walking behind a mother and her three sons aged between six and twelve, all of whom loved the film. I couldn’t help but over hear the eldest of the boys said “That was reeeeeeally good! I can’t wait to read the book now!!!!” In my opinion, if it gets kids to read, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief must be doing something right.



Should I See It?

Yes, it’s enjoyable,just be prepared to switch your brain off and just go along for the ride.








 
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief Official Site here.



*I am in no way suggesting that either of these movies are great examples of cinema, nor am I suggesting that the Percy Jackson books are better than the Harry Potter books. I am only saying that comparatively, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a better FILM that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, irrespective of their source material.

Up in the Air Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, February 18, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (1)





Film: Up in the Air
Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick and Jason Bateman
Plot: With a job that has him traveling around the country firing people, Ryan Bingham leads an empty life out of a suitcase, until his company does the unexpected: ground him.

Please be advised: Up In the Air was the cinematic experience that inspired The Guide to Cinema Etiquette. So my attention was not necessarily on the film. This review was written with great difficulty because of the horrendous behaviour of my fellow cinema patrons.



Up In the Air is another solid cinematic entry from director Jason Reitman, following the surprise box office success of Juno (2007) and the critical success of Thank You for Smoking (2005).

Up In the Air is a socially aware film, quite obviously making a comment on today’s society, but one that seems appropriate given the Global Financial Crisis.

The opening scenes of men and women wondering what their future will hold now they are out of work are open, honest and a little confronting. Sure, it’s not an easy way to open a film, but it’s one of the film’s best parts. Mostly because those people in the opening and closing scenes are not actors, but people who have been recently laid off. They come with such a raw honesty that you would have to have a heart of stone not to feel for them.



Up In the Air packs these emotional punches the whole way through. Which is not surprising really; firing people is hardly a sunny business. Yet out of this comes some surprising comic moments. The film moves easily between the dark and the light, often with on feeding the other. The changes in tone are done skilfully, never disrupting the flow of the film, but rather enhancing it.

Despite all this business about firing people, Up In the Air is not really about the Global Financial Crisis. That only provides the background for a story about the importance of having someone, anyone, to come home to.

The journey of Ryan Bingham (corporate sacker, motivational speaker that motivates people to rid their lives of personal connections) from a man who loves to be on the road to realising that how empty it is to be alone is expertly done. It is even evident cinematically: compare the efficiency and energy of the airport scenes at the beginning of the film, with the resigned way Ryan approaches he departures board at the films end.




In a story about the importance of human connection, it is not surprising that technology takes a beating, as does Generation Y for their insistence on using it. The scene where Natalie (Anna Kendrick) is dumped via text message is both heartbreakingly and hilariously ironic.

The only scene that feels awkward is the celebration of Ryan’s 10 million mile mark mid air.

Performances are solid (as you would expect, since all three leads are nominated for Academy Awards). George Clooney is very good. Ryan Bingham is just and ‘ordinary’ guy. There’s nothing wrong with him, he’s not crazy, not on drugs, not a criminal master mind, not fighting in a war, not dealing with the death of anyone. He just has a fear of commitment. And maybe that’s the hardest thing to do….act normal.




Vera Farmiga is the performance I am the most ambivalent about. I don’t think it’s really award worthy, she really didn’t have anything to do. Anna Kendrick was better….

Up in the Air was slated as the favourite to win the Academy Award for Best Picture before Avatar and The Hurt Locker snuck in. I have to say that Up in the Air is a probably a more appropriate choice than a bunch of CGI creatures and the war in Iraq.

Up in the Air is a good film and, apart from a few swear words, is relatively inoffensive. And it’s reflection of the times makes it better- or perhaps better received- that it otherwise would be.


Should I See It?

Sure! An enjoyable, well made film.





Up In the Air Official Site here.

SUBSCRIBE

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, February 14, 2010 , under | comments (0)



If you wish to Subscribe to Should I See It? then enter your email address in the box to the right that says SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES


Or follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shouldiseeblog

DISCLAIMER

Posted by Should I See It on , under | comments (0)



Should I See It? does not own any film, images or trailers on this site, they belong to their respective studios and production companies. Should I See It? does, however, own all the words. This blog holds Should I See It’s? opinions. If you don’t like it... well, tough luck.

CONTACT

Posted by Should I See It on , under | comments (0)



For questions, comments or suggestions, you can leave a message in the 'comments' section on the appropriate page.

Alternatively, you can tweet

@shouldiseeblog

All comments are welcome!

The Lovely Bones Review

Posted by Should I See It on Friday, February 12, 2010 , under | comments (0)






Film: The Lovely Bones
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon.
Plot: Based on the book by Alice Sebold, the film centres on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.



Big things were expected from The Lovely Bones. Mainly because it’s directed by Peter Jackson and written by the same people that brought us The Lord of the Rings and Steven Spielberg is a producer. The film’s stars have either won or been nominated for an Academy Award. So that’s some pretty big cinematic muscle pushing one film. Plus Alice Sebolds book has sold over 10 million copies worldwide. So having high expectations was not unreasonable. And it’s not like it’s a bad film. It’s okay. It’s just that with all those names behind it you expect something great.

In some respects the film really delivers. Susie’s heaven is beautiful. The way the visuals link earth and Susie’s heaven are especially creative. I especially liked the scene where her father (Mark Wahlberg) is running through the cornfield chasing after her killer, and Susie is running alongside him in the gazebo in her heaven. I also loved seeing her father’s ‘boats in bottles’ drift ashore in Susie’s heaven.



 
The Lovely Bones is confronting. But then again, you never really see the ‘violence’ take place; it’s the implication that’s scarier than actually seeing it. The film creates a lot of suspense. I was terrified that Susie’s sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) wouldn’t make it out of Mr Harvey’s house (even though I have read the book, and knew that she would!)

Most of the creepiness comes from Stanley Tucci’s performance. But the creepiness of Mr Harvey comes not because he is out of control, but rather how calculating he is. Mr Harvey plans his murders in detail. One of the scenes that I found the most… I’m not sure of the right word…. Well let’s say when the police officers came to question him about what he was doing the day Susie disappeared, and he hurries to set up a scene for himself- a plate of cookies, an open magazine, he even goes not far as to spread a few crumbs around- I was a little bit freaked out, because that scene showed exactly how sane this deranged man is.



Good performances from Saoirse Ronan and also Susan Sarandon in an uncharacteristically comic role.

The most frustrating thing about the film is the lack of character development.

Actually the character that gets the most attention and development is the dead girl, Susie. But how worthwhile is this character development? I mean, she’s dead!

As for the people still alive, they are sketches of real people: there is no depth or anything to really define them as characters unique to this story.

Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg are forgettable as Susie’s parents. I never once believed them as a married couple or as parents to Susie, Lindsey and Buckley. I’m not sure if this is the fault of the script or the actors… but you would expect actors of that calibre to be able to ‘act’ their way through some of the things the script is missing.


 
While the book is told from Susie’s point of view, the story is really about her family and how they cope, the heaven stuff is just incidental, it helps move the narrative along, as opposed to being the narrative itself. However, the film is too in love with its images of heaven, which while wonderful, get in the way of the story. I understand that the heaven aspect makes this particular story unique. It separates it from all of the other ’my child has been murdered and how will I cope’ movies that we’ve all seen (or can at least imagine!), but there is too much ‘heaven.’ The earth storyline feels empty; there are too many pieces missing to have the audience make a real commitment to the characters that are still alive.

Now, the ending. Some have called it uplifting (Herald Sun, I am looking at you) but I would say that the condensed time frame of the film and the collective way in which everyone deals with their grief, seems forced.



Should I See It?

If there’s nothing else to see, the film isn’t painful to watch or anything like that, but it wouldn’t be my first choice.



The Lovely Bones Official Site here.

The Swimming Club Review

Posted by Should I See It on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 , under , , , | comments (0)




Show: The Swimming Club
Presented By: Melbourne Theatre Company
Directed By: Kate Cherry
Starring: Tina Bursill, Caroline Gillmer, Megan Holloway, Nicholas Papademetriou, Angela Punch McGregor, Igor Sas and John Waters.
Plot: In 1983, six friends were without a care in the world, spending one glorious summer together working and loving on a Greek island. Now that they are middle-class, Middle-aged, mid -career and mortgaged to the hilt, do they really want to carry all their burderns halfway around the world for a reunion?
Date Reviewed: Wednesday 10th February, 8pm.


The Swimming Club is the first play in the Melbourne Theatre Company’s 2010 season. It’s a new work from Aussie playwright Hannie Rayson, and unfortunately it’s not as strong as it should be.

Here are all the nice things that I have to say The Swimming Club: So it's great that Australian playwrights are getting work, and Australian actors are getting work putting on the plays that they have written.

And that’s about it.

Well, to be fair, there are a couple of good performances.

Caroline Gillmer gives one of the best performances of the night as Bird Rossitor. She is understated, realistic, and gives probably the most well rounded performance. Tina Bursill as travel writer Laura is good too, even though her 'Canadian' accent is a bit all over the shop. Newcomer Megan Holloway as teenager Sappho is also impressive. I look forward to seeing her spread her wings in years to come. And John Waters proves why he is one of Austalia’s best actors.

Matt Scott also provides some beautiful lighting. The scenes where the characters are swimming in the sea are particularly impressive. Actually, thanks to the lighting, those are the only scenes were you are actually transported into the story, as opposed to feeling like you are watching a play.



Now for the not so nice things.

As previously mentioned, The Swimming Club is a new play by Hannie Rayson. I have not seen any of Ms Rayson’s previous works, so I had no preconceptions going into the show; only high expectations.

This play doesn’t quite work for me: the first act and the second act seem at odds with each other. The first act uses a lot of different narrative techniques (jumping back and forward in time, monologues etc) to fill the audience in all he back story. While it is quite jarring for the first five to ten minutes, the play soon settles into its own rhythm. Then the second act uses a linear timeline to tell the rest of the story. It is strange coming out of the creativity of the first act, and is probably why act two looses a lot of its momentum.

In Act Two, the characters are older, but certainly not any wiser. Apart from Dave (John Waters) they don’t seem to have developed much in twenty five years. The characters are mostly cliché any way. Sappho I your typical ‘rebellious’ teenager, who rebels against her parents and their upper- middle class lifestyle by becoming a goth, taking ecstasy and dating a Muslim Emo (okay, so that last part is unique). Then there’s Kate who’s having an affair. Bird was left by her husband for a younger woman, and then gets breast cancer and has to fight it on her own.

And don’t even get me started on Nikos: the token gay man who is in love with Laura!?! Don’t get me wrong, Nicholas Papademetriou did a decent job, but I have no idea what the character was doing in the play. He was undefined, had no arc and no development.



As for the Plot: Greek islands- wedding- old lovers reunite…. This play is pretty much just a whacked up version of Mamma Mia, without the songs. Whenever the girl in the white dress appeared on stage I half expected it to be Amanda Seyfried and for her to burst into a chorus of ‘Honey Honey.’ I wish I could say it was like Mamma Mia without the dancing, but unfortunately there are a couple of times where the cast breaks out into some really bad Greek dancing (trust me, that’s a couple of times too many).

The constant references to 'The Swimming Club' were irksome. First of all, who would call themselves that? Who forms 'clubs' anymore? It sounds like something out of The Famous Five, not what six twenty-something’s would voluntarily call themselves.

I don’t expect things to end neatly tied up with a ribbon, but the ending was awkward: letting teenage Sappho join 'The Swimming Club' was silly. The whole idea of the club is that it was tied to one particular summer. And can I just say that every one who is a member of ‘the swimming club’ ends up miserable; why would anyone want to willingly inflict that on their daughter????

The play is too long; it needs at least half an hour trimmed from it. Even a day later I am left thinking about the play, but not in a good way. I am wondering what the point of it was. Was it to say that things are easier when you are younger, before you enter the disappointment of middle age, children, a mortgage, and maybe facing up to the fact that your life and your love isn’t what you thought it would be? Well, I thought that was just life. No need to waste two and a half hours of my time telling me that, aren't we surrounded by that every day?





And for my final rant: Angela Punch McGregor archaeology professor Kate Morton was absolutely awful. She was ridiculously over the top. There was nothing real or believable about her presentation of her character.

In the first act I found her irritating, but in the second act she was out of control. How can a director not helm in a performance like that? And for an actress with so many credits, I’m surprised that she never knew what to do with her hands.

Then I read in her bio that she is the Senior Lecturer in Acting at the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts. Really? She is teaching the next generation of Australian performers how to act?! Heaven help us all!





Should I See It?

Nope. Save yourself the trouble.


The Swimming Club runs until 14th March 2010.

All photos courtesy of Melbourne Theatre Company.

Melbourne Theatre Company Official Site here.

About

Posted by Should I See It on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 , under | comments (0)



Should I See It is a Melbourne based film and theatre lover. The only thing Should I See It enjoys more than watching films is critiquing them!

Should I See It has a Bachelor of Arts degree and has completed a Masters in Cinema Studies.

Should I See It doesn’t really care what ‘industry critics’ say. The whole reason Should I See It started this blog is because they were sick of reading reviews that they didn’t agree with.

Should I See It does not set much store by awards and awards ceremonies . Call Should I See It old fashioned, but they believe that awards should go to the most deserving, not to who has the best campaign.

Should I See It’s favourite films include The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday and Singin’ in the Rain.

Should I See It has never seen Titanic or The Shawshank Redemption.

Should I See It also enjoys Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain.

An Education Review

Posted by Should I See It on , under , , , | comments (0)



”An


Film: An Education
Director: Lone Scherfig
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sargsaard, Alfred Molina, Dominic Cooper, Rosamund Pike, and Emma Thompson.
Plot: A coming of age story of sixteen year old British school girl Jenny, in 1960s suburban London, who takes up with David, a man twice her age, who shows her the ways of the world.


I went to see An Education for one reason, and it is the same reason I watch Mad Men: The Clothes. The late fifties - early sixties was definitely a high point in fashion.

Oh, I know, An Education is getting a lot of nominations and critical praise, but I always take that with a grain of salt. Awards only mean you have a good campaign. I knew, regardless of what the film would be like, that the clothes would be good.

And I was right. The period detail in An Education is exquisite. I love the contrast between the mundane suburban London with the high fashion of David’s social whirlwind of fine dining and great music.

But actually, the rest of An Education is exquisite too.



As Jenny, Carey Mulligan is luminous. She has a wonderful Audrey Hepburn quality about her, but thankfully does not have that annoying affected way of speaking. Her butterfly like transformation in discovering a world of life and culture beyond her stilted British girls school and home actually warrants a use of the ‘star is born’ cliché.

Also excellent is Peter Sarsgaard as David. He exudes an easy British charm and charisma, but there is always the hint of something darker lurking beneath the surface. It is criminal that Sarsgaard has been left off so many best actor nomination lists.



As Jenny’s father, Alfred Molina shines. Cara Seymour as Jenny’s mother is solid, but doesn’t have the same connection with Mulligan that Molina and Sarsgaard do. It wasn’t until about twenty minutes into the film where Jenny addresses her as ‘mum’ that I realised she was Jenny’s mother and not her step mother.

One thing the film does not adequately address is the unsettling nature of David’s relationship with school girl Jenny, particularly when it enters sexual territory. The actions of Jenny’s parents also confound me. Her mother, at least, has an inkling of the possibility of a sexual relationship between Jenny and David, yet does nothing. I find it hard to fathom that David’s charm alone would cause them to bend/break/ignore (whatever you want to say) their staunch 1950s principles and let Jenny ‘take up’ with David.



The ‘education’ in question is both figurative and literal. The figurative: Jenny learns about the world and her place in it, but the more interesting one to dissect is in fact the literal education: her schooling. The film opens with images of female students learning deportment, cooking and sewing skills, effectively painting the pre feminist movement ideology on education for women.

Jenny's dream is to read English at Oxford University. yet as her figurative education begins to affect her literal one Jenny begins to reasses the role of education for women. At school at least, she is surrounded by 'educated' women, all of whom are unhappy. Jenny is told, without any fanfare, her options are marriage or teaching or the social service. This decision (while underlying most of the fim) makes the final act all that more interesting.

It's almost as if the film seems to recognise that Jenny would bloom with opportunites made availabl buy the social change that is looming just around the corner.

An Education is a well rounded film, it quietly draws you in to Jenny’s coming of age story. Definitely my favourite of the awards season.


Should I See It?



Absolutely, if only to see the performance that will make Carey Mulligan a star.




An Education Official Site here.

Where The Wild Things Are Review

Posted by Should I See It on Saturday, February 6, 2010 , under | comments (0)






Film: Where the Wild Things Are
Director: Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano.
Plot: Eight year old Max, in trouble from his mother, retreats to an island in his imagination where he is made king of the Wild Things.


I don't understand all the negative press about Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are.

To me, it is a beautifully crafted film that demonstrates a high level of creativity and imagination. Director Spike Jonze has taken a picture book and turned it into a very pronounced cinematic reflection of childhood. Maurice Sendak's book is expanded into a learning experience for young Max about the responsibilities of adulthood, leading him to appreciate his childhood.

Even not having 'read' the book in nearly twenty years, I can still remember the illustrations and how they simultaneously excited and scared my five-year-old self. Just as the illustrations are important to the book, the visual style of the film is its greatest strength. The film almost perfectly recreates some of the books key images. I have to admit I got a bit of thrill when Max is made king of the Wild Things and they place the crown on his head, Similarly, Max's boat trip to the island of the Wild Things felt as thought the pages of the book had literally jumped onto the screen. The design of the 'Wild Things'- created through a mix of actors in suits and CGI- are also stunning.





The strength of the visuals continues beyond the realisation of the books key images. The scene where Carol shows Max a miniature version of the Wild Things’ dream city is particularly beautiful. There is a magical aura about the sequence, which makes the destruction of the miniature all the more poignant.

Filming on location in Victoria (Yay for Australia!!!!) works to the films advantage. The dusty greys and browns of the landscape has a real other worldly feel to it. The rapid changes in geography (bush to desert to ocean) could only happen in a fantastical world such as this, yet the unfamiliarity of the Victorian landscape lends itself to believability.





What I love most about the film is its ability to place the audience in Max's shoes. We feel his fear, his wonder, his guilt. Spike Jonze creates the cinematic equivalent of first person narration without resorting to the dreaded voiceover.

It is always dangerous having such a young protagonist, but Max Records as Max is excellent. It is hard to believe that Where the Wild Things Are is his feature film debut. He comes to the role with a simultaneous innocence and intelligence but without any of the affectation that you usually see in (particularly American) child actors.




I have to give props to screenwriters Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze who have transformed the ‘Wild Things’ into fully developed, complicated and emotional characters. It is actually scary when Carol turns against Max. You feel the complexity of the relationship between KW and Carol without needing it to be explained. Catherine O’Hara’s character, Judith, is a particular standout, who, while comic, has an inclination for destruction that is a threat to Max and his world.

While there are a few things puzzling me, like where did Max actually go? And why is Mark Ruffalo billed so high when he is only in the film for a minute (and that is not an exaggeration, it was actually only a minute)? And how many minutes should have been trimmed off the run time so the final third of the film wouldn’t drag? But essentially Spike Jonze creates a beautifully crafted intelligent and introspective film, while about child hood, is probably not for children.





Should I See It?

Definitely yes! A Visual Delight!



Where the Wild Things Are Official SIte here.

A Guide to Cinema Etiquette

Posted by Should I See It on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 , under | comments (1)



Please note the following article is based on real life experience. No fictionalisation has taken place.



The experience of watching a movie is simultaneously isolating and social. It is an isolating experience, because it is extremely personal- you are receiving and reacting to information, but you cannot vocally express your thoughts or feelings with anyone else. Yet at the same time it is a social experience- not only is the film maker sharing ideas with out, but you are sitting in a room full of other people.

My most recent outing to the cinema was one of the most horrible cinematic experiences of my life. And no, it wasn’t because of a bad movie. It was because of a bad audience. The rudeness of two particular audience members astounded me. I was so upset by their behaviour that I did the only thing I could do: write about it.

Watching a film for the first time is akin to a sacred experience. You only have one chance to watch a film for the first time, and why some people go out of their way to destroy that experience for others confounds me.

So in order to curb the crisis of awful manners in the cinema I have decided to write A Guide to Cinema Etiquette for the benefit of future cinema goers.


TALKING

Talking during a movie is strictly verboten. You may talk during previews, but not excessively loudly, some people actually want to watch them, and the subject of your conversation is of no interest to anyone other than you (sometimes it is also of interest to the person you are with).

As soon as the lights are fully down and the screen goes black and there is that moment where you KNOW the film is about to start, YOU MUST STOP TALKING. The cinema experience is sacred. It must not be interrupted by the sound of irrelevant chatter. Talking must not occur at any point during the film. (In the event of a heart attack, allergic reaction or situation similarly life threatening, this rule may be ignored).


PHONES

Phones should be switched off in the cinema, And I mean OFF. Not soft, not vibrate, not silent, but OFF. As in NO POWER. OFF.

No one wants to hear your ring tone, and no one wants to hear your phone vibrate in a particularly quite and/or intense scene.

If your phone rings- DON’T answer it. If you must answer it, please exit the cinema. For God’s sake don’t have a conversation while still in the cinema. It is just plain rude.

After the phone rings the first time, it should not happen again because once you have realised your error, you should switch your phone off.

Also, don’t send a text message- the light from your phone is distracting to others in the audience.


LATE ARRIVALS

The policy on arriving late to the cinema is simple: DON’T. It’s like a train. If you’re late: too bad, you’ve missed it. It sounds harsh, but the reasoning is simple: your late arrival is a distraction to everyone in the cinema.


FOOD IN THE CINEMA

I don’t know who the genius was that decided popcorn in the cinema was a good idea. Not only is it incredibly messy (it has a tendency to spill at the most inconvenient times in the most inconvenient places) but it is also incredibly noisy. No one should have to hear the awful sound of a hand rummaging through a Mega-Jumbo-Grande box of popcorn, or worse, the sound as it is crunched through horrendously rude teeth.

In the case of plastic wrappers: they should be opened prior to the commencement of the film. The choc top wrapper can often be quite tricky, so even if you don’t want to eat the ice cream straight away, it is best to open the wrapper before hand and then leave it in there until you are ready to do so.

If it is absolutely necessary to open something that has a plastic wrapper while the movie is in progress, it is best to do so as quickly as possible. Trying to be quiet only makes the noise worse. It is better to quickly distract then it is to completely destroy the cinema experience with the incessant rustling of plastic.

But seriously, you are in the cinemas for what, two hours? Surely you can survive without food for two hours. That’s why it’s called dinner AND a movie, not dinner IN the movie.


TOILETS

Go to the bathroom before the film starts. No one wants to be climbed over as you make your way out to the bathroom and then climbed over again as you make your way back to your seat. Similarly, no one in the rows behind you wants your head blocking their view as you climb over people on the way to the bathroom and then again as you climb over people on the way back to your seat.

If you have a weak bladder, do not drink a Super-Mega-Grande cup of soft drink during the movie. If you must do so, at least have the courtesy to sit on the end of a row.


KISSING

I didn’t think anyone had made out in a cinema since 1954, but how wrong I was! Firstly, DON’T. Or at least have the decency to sit in the back row and keep the sounds of sharing saliva to yourselves.


THE CLOSING CREDITS and EXIT ETIQUETTE

Believe it or not, some people actually like to watch the closing credits. If you are not one of those people, do not stand up and have a conversation in the middle of the cinema, blocking the view of the people sitting behind you. You should move as quickly and quietly as possible to the exit.

The discussion of a film should not begin until you have exited the building, mainly so you are not over heard by those with a far superior ability to critique films and thus preventing you from looking like an idiot whist airing your ill informed opinions.



So there you have it: A Guide to Cinema Etiquette. Now if we could just make sure that everybody followed these rules, we could make sure that every cinema going experience was a pleasant one.



Please note that variations of these rules of cinema etiquette also apply to plays, musical theatre, opera and orchestral performances.