Showing posts with label Almodovar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Almodovar. Show all posts

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Film review: LA VOIE LACTÉE [THE MILKY WAY] (Luis Buñuel, 1969)


Luis Buñuel'a irreverent send-up of Christianity sees Pierre (Paul Frankeur) and Jean (Laurent Terzieff) embarking on a religious pilgrimage from France to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. Along the way, they come a series of unexpected events, from walking in on a ritual from a secret sect, being asked to moderate a duel, and a chance meeting with the Grim Reaper.

La Voie lactée's surrealist elements and indictment of Catholicism render it classic Luis Buñuel, but  neither of these two components were employed terribly effectively. As in Tristana, I found the dream sequences distractingly low-quality, and because the whole file had a trippy vibe, it was difficult to delineate the fantasy sequences from the actual storytelling. The cutaways didn't add anything to the narrative, and, perhaps because I'm treated due to shows like Family GuyI usually expect my cut-aways to be, you know, funny. Here, they were met with a *tumbleweed*-style reaction.

The Catholic Church offers ample material for mockery, and having their teachings torn apart, something that Pedro Almodóvar does effectively in several of his films. He achieves it by writing characters such as a shady priests into various stories (e.g. La mala educación), and then allowing the plot to unravel as the hypocrisy and corruption of said characters are exposed. That way, the audience sees these people for the monsters they are, whilst recognising their religious background played a formative role in this. We have been shown, rather than told.

But in La Voie lactée, the speeches delivered by characters in this film by preachers and brainwashed kids, written in such an brazen way so as to make the deliverers look stupid, felt like the audience was being spoon-fed to laugh at these characters and ridicule their beliefs. The contradictory things they were spouting were too out there and nonsensical for it to be plausible that the character believed in what they were saying.

The closing titles of the film, which laid out all the problems with religious dogmas, epitomises Buñuel's heavy-handed approach:  if the film had done its job properly, the audience should already know this. They wouldn't need it rammed down their throat. This complete lack of nuance meant I was, lamentably, not able to enjoy this film as much as I would have liked to. (I like ridiculing religion as much as the next person!)

However, as with previous Buñuel titles, I was still amused by the film, and scenes which were darkly comic and the audience unsure whether or not to laugh meant we were kept on their toes. One vignette, where a woman lies on the cross and has her hands pinned to it like Jesus Christ, was visually discreet but made an arresting impression. And the benefit of having so many short scenes, pieced together in a sketch-like way, meant that the viewer was at least, never bored.

I wouldn't classify La Voie lactée as Buñuel's best work. But it's a curious entry into his filmography that his aficionados might derive more enjoyment from than I did. 

6/10

--

If you enjoyed this review, the rest of my reviews are here!

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Half-birthday Top 5s of 2016 (so far).

It's my 26.5th birthday today, so I thought I'd list my top 5 of the dominant 'Oscar' categories as of now (having seen 42 titles). 

For the acting categories I'll try my best to be objective and list in order of 'best' rather than 'favourite'. For example, my favourite performance of the year so far is Jesse Eisenberg in Café Society because I identify with his character the most. He'll almost certainly make my 10 favourite performances of 2016 list, but I concede that it's not necessarily the best male lead acting performance of the year.

To further illustrate this point, in my favourite performances of 2015, I listed Domhnall Gleeson in The Revenant because he looked damn gorgeous with a ginger beard. But objectively, he was probably only the fourth best performance in that dull film after Leo, Tom Hardy and Will Poulter.

I'm doing these lists now so I can show my love to some actors who didn't necessarily appear in prestige pictures, as they might get bumped out of the top 5s when Oscar bait like La La Land and Fences drops. For example, Jena Malone in The Neon Demon, an excellent, arresting turn, wouldn't get near the Oscars, but it was so good it needs to be highlighted. And not just due to the shock of Johanna Mason from The Hunger Games romancing the dead, haha.

And obviously, top films are not so objective because those are just favourites, haha.


Film
01. A United Kingdom 
02. Zootropolis
03. Café Society 
04. Kubo and the Two Strings 
05. Hell or High Water 



Direction
01. Amma Asante, A United Kingdom
02. Travis Knight, Kubo and the Two Strings
03. Pedro Almodóvar, Julieta
04. Dan Trachtenberg, 10 Cloverfield Lane
05. Nicolas Pesce, The Eyes of My Mother



Actor, Leading Role
01. David Oyewolo, A United Kingdom
02. Chris Pine, Hell or High Water
03. Jesse Eisenberg, Café Society 
04. Jonah Hill, War Dogs
05. Miles Teller, War Dogs



Actress, Leading Role
01. Emily Blunt, The Girl on the Train
02. Adriana Ugarte, Julieta
03. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, 10 Cloverfield Lane
04. Rosamund Pike, A United Kingdom
05. Emma Suárez, Julieta



Actor, Supporting Role
01. Alden Ehrenreich, Hail, Caesar!
02. Ben Foster, Hell or High Water
03. John Goodman, 10 Cloverfield Lane
04. Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
05. Tom Bennett, David Brent: Life on the Road



Actress, Supporting Role
01. Kate McKinnon, Ghostbusters
02. Jena Malone, The Neon Demon
03. Viola Davis, Suicide Squad
04. Haley Bennett, Magnificent Seven
05. Kristen Stewart, Café Society 



Screenplay (adapted and original) because I CBA to google which were original and adapted and hence do separate categories for both, haha
01. Café Society 
02. War Dogs
03. Zootopia
04. Julieta
05. The Hunt for the Wilderpeople


I haven't watched enough big hitters to do the aural/visual categories, as the best scores and camerawork are usually in the films which aim high and have budgets to match. But yeah, that was that!

--

Because I'm a shady cow...


Worst Film
01. High-Rise my only 2/10 score of the year. What a load of bloated wank. Also, it should have been rated 18 because it was so unpleasant to watch.
02. The Boss
05. Absolutely Unfunny Fabulous

Worst Performances
01. Cara Delevingne, Suicide Squad this probably won't change at the end of the year
02. Kris Wu, So Young 2: Never Gone 
03. Ricky Gervais, David Brent: Life on the Road
04. Sienna Miller, High-Rise
05. Chris Pratt, Magnificent Seven

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Sausage Party should NOT have been rated 15!!

Urgh, Sausage Party.



I wasn't the biggest fan of this film (5/10 for me), which is somewhat surprising given I love crude, non-PC humour a la Family Guy, and the Hollywood cast behind it was eye-watering. But I found SP ludicrous, try-hard, thinking itself cleverer than it was, as well as committing the cardinal sin of comedies: being unfunny.

The dialogue, for starters, felt forced, like they were trying to beat some record for the amount of f-bombs in a movie. The screenwriters inserted 'f_ck' into almost every line of dialogue and as such, it lost its impact. It also led the script to feel somewhat clunky; contrast that to the swearing in Martin Scorsese movies. In some of his films, the curse words come thick and fast, but you buy it, because it feels organic, and part of the character and the way they speak. With SP it just felt like they were trying to be edgy.

I didn't laugh at many of the jokes. I thought the scope was too ambitious - trying to cover racism, religion, and analogising each race to foodstuffs (how utterly groundbreaking), as well as having an underlying story about sausages discovering the truth about what happens to them. The weird plunger who kept wanting to get revenge on Seth Rogen and Kristen Wiig's character was creepy A F, didn't like him.

But I'm not here to rant about Sausage Party. It's doing well for itself at the Box Office, and you can't begrudge Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg for that. What didn't do it for me, is clearly doing it for many other cinemagoers.

No, I'd like to discuss how on earth the BBFC gave Sausage Party a 15 certificate. There are two main classification issues that I thought should have taken it to an 18.

1. The male-to-female usage of the c-word
in the following discussion, when I refer to 'cnut', I'm actually talking about the word with the n and the u switched around.

The f-word itself is not enough to elevate a 15 to an 18, no matter how many times you say it. And you can actually say 'cnut' quite a few times in a 15-rated film (from the BBFC podcasts, I believe the record number of c-words you can say is seven or eight), depending on the context. 

But single uses of the c-word can lift it from a 15 to 18. I'm thinking of Sleeping Beauty, not the Disney classic, but a dark tale of a girl who lets men pay her to do whatever they want to her whilst she's asleep. There were three issues contributing to the 18 certificate there, but if you read the report I linked, one of them was an 18-rated use of the c-word, which was directed aggressively towards her whilst she's asleep. There's another such anatomical use of the c-word, directed from a man to a woman in François Ozon's similarly themed Jeune et Jolie, also an 18.

So the BBFC are pretty squeamish about male-to-female uses of the c-word, because of the misogynistic overtones, as well as the fact that men are generally taller and stronger than women, so the utterance of the c-word adds to an element of 'imbalance of power'. One episode of Californication was thus put up to 18 because a lady was called a 'f_cking cnut' by a drunk man because she accidentally bumped into him.

Similarly, one of the two issues that got Gone Girl its 18 rating was when Ben Affleck calls Rosamund Pike a 'f_cking cnut' repeatedly, to which she replies defiantly, 'I'm the cnut you married'.

Off the top of my head, one film which was passed 15 despite containing a male-to-female usage of the c-word is in Frank, when Domhnall Gleeson calls Maggie Gyllenhaal one. But that scene is resolved immediately in a comic manner to show that she hasn't taken offence, quite the opposite, it's turned her on, and in that case, the impact is greatly reduced.

Anyway, back to Sausage Party, which contained three uses of the c-word. Two of them were uttered by Edward Norton's bagel, and he's either referring to himself or another man, so they didn't bother me. His character has ongoing beef with a lavash called Kareem (Seth Rogen's laboured metaphor for the Israel/Palestine conflict), so one of the c-bombs was him calling Kareem that under his breath, pretty expected.

The third c-word, however, said near the start of the film, is delivered by Jonah Hill's sausage about Kristen Wiig's bun, after she's shown him up in front of everyone. He turns to Seth Rogen's sausage (Wiig's boyfriend in the film) and says 'Dude, um, how do I say this to you gently? But your girlfriend, um... She's a fucking cnut.'

Sidenote: we already know Jonah delivers the c-word with relish:


Given all the examples I've just given of films taken up to 18 because of male to female uses of the c-word, and what the BBFC repeatedly state themselves on their podcasts (which I have listened to over and over many a time on my commutes, how do you think I can just reel off examples off the top of my head?), a man screaming the c-word at a woman is likely to take the film up to an 18.

I get that Jonah's sausage didn't scream it in this scene, and he was also saying it about a woman rather than to her (although she was within earshot) but the matter of fact way in which he said it, the fact that misogynistic abuse was being played for laughs, meant that the BBFC should definitely have thought about the suitability of such language within a 15-rated framework.

2. The orgy scene
Firstly, I totally get that you can show quite a lot of sex in 15-rated films. Blue Valentine, Monster's Ball and Black Swan are held up by the BBFC as the upper bounds of sex that will be allowed in a 15; the former two flirted with the Kiss of Death rating, the NC-17 in the States, yet didn't even get the highest 18 certificate here.

(Interestingly, La mala educación, which, whilst being nowhere near Pedro Almodóvar's most explicit film and comfortably placed at 15, got NC-17 in the States. This is because the MPAA rate homosexual love scenes with a different yardstick to heterosexual ones, something that the BBFC, who treat all sex scenes equally, don't. Basically, the MPAA be hella homophobic).

The reason Blue Valentine and Monster's Ball had their sex scenes rated 15 despite being quite long and featuring mechanical thrusting motions, is, as argued by the BBFC in their podcasts, the crucialness they play to the plot of the films, as well as both movies featuring sex in the framework of a loving relationship.

It is for this reason that the BBFC are stricter on group sex scenes, even if the detail is minimal. The last Lindsay Lohan movie I saw, the 18-rated The Canyons, contained a ménage à quatre scene, but although there were some impressions of what was going on, it was so dimly lit that all you saw were shadowy movement. Because the shapes were so dark and vaguely made out, this group sex scene lacked the intimacy of something in, say, Blue Valentine.

Similarly, Straight Outta Compton: Director's Cut was rated 18 (the theatrical cut was a 15) due to one such scene, even though the BBFC's Irish counterpart, the IFCO, rated the Director's Cut a 15, and the Irish film board, whilst matching the majority of the BBFC's decisions, tend to be harsher with sex scenes overall. For example, some of the sex scenes that the BBFC allow at 12, the Irish rate 15. This tells me that the content of the Straight Outta Compton: Director's Cut scene couldn't have really been that strong, or else the Irish would have followed suit in rating it 18.

So the BBFC are more permissive than their Irish counterparts on sex overall, if it's within the framework of a couple doing it, whether it be man/woman [Never Let Me Go is a 15 in Ireland, 12 here], man/man, or woman/woman [Black Swan is an 18 in Ireland]), but stricter on orgies. Fair enough, every film board is different and operates by their own protocol.

So, why, then, if a sex scene involving more than 2 people usually gets a film an 18 certificate, was Sausage Party a 15?!?!?!?!?!

I lost count of the amount of members of the supermarket foods orgy scene, but there were a hell of a lot more people involved than just 2, and the detail was graphic, there was no ambiguity about what was going on, and the mechanical detail, in terms of sexual outlets was crude and nasty.

I was traumatised by that scene. The audience around me loved it, laughing their heads off at every frame, but honestly, I just thought it was tacky. And like I've said before, it's hardly like I'm epitome of highbrow; I usually find crude humour hilarious. But this was too much. And definitely too much for a 15 certificate.

I know the BBFC will just say that 'oh but it was with animated foods, it's not like it's humans' , but these foods are given anthropomorphic (foodthropomorphic?) qualities, so that argument doesn't really wash with me. They had arms, legs, faces, voices, and quite clearly, sexual libidos. To palm the explicitness of that sex scene off as 15-material just because they were cartoon sausages and buns is irresponsible, and irresponsible is not a word I often throw at the BBFC [I usually think they're too cautious].

Long post was long, I know. But Sausage Party should not have been a goddamn 15. I'm sure Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg would have embraced the 18 certificate had they been given it, and taken it as a badge of honour in terms of what it said about the film's filth. Because it was filth, and 15-17 years old should not have been allowed to see it.

--------------



maybe I just wrote all this because I watched Sausage Party almost exclusively for Jonah Hill (just like the cartoon pictured above), and the film was ultimately disappointing. Here's hoping that Kubo and the 2 Strings, which I'm watching tomorrow for Rooney Mara, won't follow in SP's crappy footsteps.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Juliet-huh?

Here's a nerdy spot that I couldn't not flag. 

Julieta, Pedro Almodóvar's upcoming movie, is rated 15 by the BBFC for strong sex. This in itself is nothing special; several of Almodóvar's movies are a 15 for strong sex (amongst other classification issues), for example Broken Embraces and The Skin I Live In.

In fact, it's because I'm so familiar with BBFC classification issues (particularly at 15), and the rubric for them in a short insight, that when I walked past this at my local train station, I was a little surprised:


'Strong sexual content', as opposed to 'strong sex', is a distinctly American wording, one that the MPAA occasionally adopt (although they didn't for Julieta, which was an R for 'sexuality/nudity'.) So that was confusing - I thought perhaps, when constructing the film poster, the BBFC had given a 15 but no specific reason yet, so the poster designers pulled the wording from the MPAA. But apparently not.

I'm sure this phenomena - of the short insight on the poster and that given by the BBFC on their website being disparate - has occurred a few times before, but it has only come to my attention one other time, for last year's embarrassingly poorly written Tom Hardy vehicle, Legend.

Legend is an 18 for 'very strong language, strong violence'. The poster I saw for it, in Picturehouse Central, said 'strong language, violence and sex references'. I know the general gist is correct, but there's a big difference between strong ('f_ck', 'motherf_cker' and 'c_cksucker') and very strong language (cnut [with the n and the u rearranged]). So that was kind of bad they didn't get that precisely right. 

Plus, at 18, you're only supposed to list the stuff that contributed towards the 18 certificate. So the fact that there were strong sex references in Legend is correct. But the dialogue was no more crude than that in many a 15-rated film, including a recent watch of mine, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, or the Bad Neighbours series. 

The actual BBFC short insight only flags the language and the violence as the classification issues at 18. Whoever did a haphazard job constructing the Legend poster placed in Picturehouse Central may well have had a mate who saw the film, and then just wrote down the three things they thought would be an issue - the swearing, the violence and the sexual dialogue. But the latter wasn't why it was 18, the former two were. 

And the swearing was very strong, not just strong.

So if the dude was gonna make up his own BBFC short insight for Legend, he should have known the guidelines better.

Just being a pedant.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

My Obsession with Film Classifications.

A post in conjunction with Culture Snob’s Self-Involvement blogathon. I thought I’d talk in detail about my weird obsession with film ratings.


I.L.P.C.


To start with, I’ll explain the British rating system. There are 5 ratings: U (suitable for all, the equivalent of G in the US), PG (parental guidance, ditto), 12A (which means that under-12s have to have an adult accompany them. 12A used to be a 12 and was changed to 12A immediately after I turned 12, so I was more than a bit pissed off about it), 15 (no-one under 15 can be admitted) and 18 (no-one under 18 can be admitted.)

The first time I visited the cinema in England was when I was 5. The film that I saw was Toy Story. It was wonderful, really. We had popcorn and sticky drinks and all the usual junk that is forced on you when you step into a cinema. Except, being the first time I’d ever had any of that food, I felt like I was in heaven. And the film itself was an experience of its own; I’d seen cartoons on TV before, but Pixar’s revolutionary brand of CGI amazed me. Back then I was probably too young to appreciate just how gorgeous and how much care had gone into creating every character, but all I know is that I thought it was pretty.

And I also remember being pretty damn scared by Toy Story at certain moments. I’d noticed that it was a PG, and perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, but knowing that it wasn’t a U-rated film made me scared at several points in the movie; particularly whenever Sid was on. But this whole crazy-obsession-with-film-ratings that I started when I was 5 has definitely carried through, because when I was younger, I used to be immediately terrified/suspicious of a movie if it had the 18 logo on it.

Similarly, if a film were rated 12 or 15, I’d feel a sense of false security when I went into the cinema to watch it. Two cases in point with 12-rated movies: The Others and Red Eye. I was so sure of myself that they’d be harmless, that I’d watch the “scary” scenes and suppress a yawn, but with both movies, that wasn’t the case; I was completely ruffled by parts of the movie.

I didn’t feel so much of a complacency towards watching 15s. This was because, when we were learning Spanish for GCSE, our teacher had played us Talk to Her, which was a 15. Most of us were 14 and 15, and the class was just so immature about the entire movie. I must admit, seeing it for the first time, I was kind of disturbed by certain parts of it, but it wasn’t anywhere near the most disturbing thing I’d ever seen. However, that experience had just shown me that movie ratings are all very well in describing how much swearing, violence, etc is in a movie, but it doesn’t necessarily measure the impact they have on the viewer. (Case in point, Savage Grace, which I saw yesterday. It was just a 15, but the sight of Julianne Moore doing something to her screen-son will disturb me for ages. Another case in point, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. That “sex” scene between Philip Seymour Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, shudder.)

Anyway, I’m just really obsessed with movie ratings, even on DVD cases. I used to have this paranoid fear when I was 17 that looking at the back of a DVD case that was rated 18 would get me automatically expelled from HMV. That’s why I’ve never tried buying an 18 when I wasn’t 18. I did buy a few 15s when I was younger than that and got away with it, but that all came to a halt when, on a Summer’s day, I’d tried to buy Ghost World & Dead Man Walking from Virgin Megastores and the store clerk had rudely told me that I “didn’t look anywhere near 15.” I was 14 and a half! Gimp.

To me, that marked my transition from child into adulthood (or child into less of a child).

PS. I dug out an article on the newsround website that I wrote when I was 13, about, surprise surprise, film ratings!

Friday, July 13, 2007