Change Your Image
tony_bligh
Reviews
Brazil (1985)
Brazil Vs. 1984
Just after watching Brazil and struck by its obvious similarities to Nineteen-Eighty-Four, to give the film its proper title. While any budding critic can reel off the Orwellian influences in Brazil, I felt it may be more interesting to consider the divergences and attempts by director Terry Gilliam to distance himself from Orwell's masterpiece.
Brazil is a much more visually arresting film then 1984. Gilliam was allowed free reign to express his unique visual style and found ample opportunity to impress and excite with trademark wit, surrealism and dramatics. 1984 is deliberately more low key, putting more emphasis on the dialog. A misplaced word or thought crime can be fatal in that environment.
While both provide a dystopia, retro future (or present), the Kafkaeaque society of Brazil at least functions on some level. 1984 only exists in a hopeless, brutally efficient war zone of Orwells imagination. Resistance to the norm provided by De Niro's Tuttle, a comic vigilante plummer, is no comparison to Goldsteins studied logic but perhaps provides more hope. That Tuttle can exist due to an administrative error shows the system is flawed and will ultimately fail. 1984 would never admit such a mistake, Buttle would have been Tuttle and always was, as the corrected records would naturally show. Most surprising is the conclusion to the torture scene in both films. They diverge radically and you will have to see the films to know what I mean.
Personally, I feel that 1984 is the more superior film of the two. The performances of Hurt and Burton are first rate, not taking anything away from Pryce, Holm and Hoskins. But the content, gravitas and impending (or current?) reality of 1984 stays with you. Brazil always had a hard act to follow coming a year after its namesake, being released in 1985. Though given the choice, I know which world I would prefer to live in, and it would be a lot more fun then BB.
Thank You for Smoking (2005)
Sorry, I don't smoke
Anyone going to see this movie and expecting a biting satire on Big Tobacco will be sorely disappointed. Though many of the set piece scenes had good potential to expose the hypocrisy's of the cigarette PR industry, most fell flatter then a damp packet of Marlboros. Instead we where treated to the generic and predictable tale of the corporate Joe who eventually learns his valuable life lesson from an adoring, faultless son.
Aaron Eckhart (from In The Company of Men) plays Nick Naylor, a VP of public relations in a tobacco lobby group. He works his trade by pulling the wool over the eyes of a gullible and susceptible public, using various devices to keep selling cigarettes to all. He is good at his job and he knows it. Pity that the first time writer/director, Christopher Buckley, tries to achieve the same effect on us, the paying public. Logical inaccuracy's are skimmed over, characters introduced and then forgotten about, standard montage jump-cuts used to indicate travel, etc. The ever brilliant William H Macy stands out from the mire as usual, as the frustrated and plausible senator trying to limit the reach of cigarettes to the teenage kids.
The conclusion is remarkable in its forced unreality. Where in the real world can a media expert screw up so spectacularly and come out a hero after a few weak one-liners? How many in the audience will leave cheering on the frustrated cigarette industry against those pesky senate legislators, even if unintended?
Sorry, but I must have had smoke in my eyes watching this farce. As with the tag-line, Christopher Buckley doesn't do compelling satire, he filters it.
Inland Empire (2006)
A Brave New World
So how do you even begin to review this film? 'INLAND EMPIRE', like most other Lynch masterworks defies categorization. You don't review a Lynch film. You probe it, analyze it, consider it but definitely not review it. So here goes.
My initial impression is that this film is a mess; unstructured, deliberately confusing and overlong. However, after many hours of thoughtful consideration by yours truly, some glimmers of light begin to shine through and some kind of logic is at operation here. The most surprising realization is that 'INLAND EMPIRE' is a continuation or mirror image of Lynch's previous film, 'Mulholland Drive', and is essential viewing prior to enjoying 'INLAND EMPIRE'. Many elements and scenes are recreated here, sometimes directly with the film within a film plot, a forbidden relationship between actors, identity changes of actors, etc. Sometimes the linkage is more tenuous, like in a similar coffee drinking scene, a script reading scene, the principles actors seeking refuge at the play/performance near the end of the film.
The first question is why recreate the plot of 'Mulholland Drive' in this film? And specifically the film within a film plot device? Both films force us to question the reality of the film we are watching. We are deliberately kept aware that we are watching a film but also we are ignorant if the actors are in character or not. This brings on a common theme in latter Lynch movies, namely identity shifting and role reversals, dreaming/hypnosis/dementia states, and of course acting/'living' states. As an aside, why is it required that the film being created with the film is always so cheesy and clichéd? Is it Lynches way of ridiculing the film making process of today? This film is Lynches most surreal since his 'Eraserhead'. An obvious link to this film is the rabbit people mirror the woman in the radiator in his first film. Both may represent an ideal yet unattainable state, whatever that may be. The surrealism in 'INLAND EMPIRE' comes from the machete job on the editing deck. Lynch stated that moving to digital was the most liberating aspect of this film and that he will not be going back to standard film. Watching this film gives the impression that the projectionist has the remote control and is flicking channels at will. Attempting to decipher the multi-plot lines is futile. So why do this in the first place? I believe that the scope and ideal of this film is to breakdown our resistance to film conventions that were previously written in stone. While this is dangerously close to boring or alienating the paying audience, the effect can be profound if received with the right intentions. For me the point was arrived suddenly at the comical and bizarre scene when Laura Dern's character describes painfully how her husband left her to join the circus (a possible clue to the meaning of the films title??). The scene itself was so jarring and yet funny that all previous attempt to tie it all together dissolved into the ether. I stopped analyzing and started just watching. I realized it didn't matter if it does not make sense, just enjoy the experience. Enjoy the concept of sitting in a dark room with a bunch of strangers watching the flickering screen and recreated sounds.
The length of the film at 3 hours is critical to attaining this state of film karma. If you resist you will exit cursing the $10 and 3 hours gone from your precious life. If you open up to the possibilities that film really does not matter, then many gems are there to be savored. The principle enjoyment of the film is the irrepressible acting of the amazing Lara Dern. If acting perfection is attained through breaking down barriers and opening your soul to the elements (and director) then Lara has attained something special in the film. How many times did you wish to look away from the level of uncomfortable display by Lara repeatedly? I wondered if her fragile love-making plea to 'look at me' was the polar opposite of Dennis Hoppers rock hard 'Don't look at me' rant from 'Blue Velvet'? Lara looked relieved but shattered at the ebullient final scene. I knew how she felt. The final song and dance routine was almost a reward to you the viewer for surviving the film. You have passed the test. You are a film goer reborn. Rejoice and be happy. Nothing will ever be the same again.