Two movies released last year, explored the enigmatic themes
of double. In both these films, a young man crosses the path of his exact
look-alike, who then gets inhibited by the other. One is Dennis Villeneuve’s
“Enemy” – inspired by 2002 Jose Saramago’s novel “The Double.” The other film
is British director Richard Ayoade’s“The Double” (2013) – inspired by Fyodor
Dostoyevsky’s novella. “Enemy” and “The Double” raises the question of ‘What is
self-identity?’ without giving any clear answers. Although they explore such same themes, they
are far away from being each other’s doppelganger, and “The Double” is more
blackly comic than the grievous “Enemy.”
Ayoade takes the densely plotted Dostoevsky novella and sets
it in a nowhere land of dingy office bureaucracy. The city is full of outdated
sub-way cars, undifferentiated apartment blocks, and purgatorial offices. The
weather is always windy and we don’t see sunlight. The people are all dour,
lonely a live according to rules. Simon James (Jesse Eisenberg) lives in this
nightmarish universe. He works as a low-level office clerk. When he travels in
an empty train carriage, a man comes to him and asks to move because he's
sitting in his seat. Simon immediately moves. He is a man who obeys orders no
matter where it is coming from. The door man at Simon’s office never seems to
recognize him, insisting every time that all visitors must
sign the book. Simon’s only pastime is telescope-peeping on the girl
across the courtyard from his apartment.
The girl named Hannah (Mia Wasikowska) is Simon’s co-worker.
She works in the office's giant, clanking photocopier and mostly shuns Simon
and he doesn’t have any courage to speak to her. Even the telescope-peeping is
obstructed by a man, living above the Hannah, who commits suicide by jumping
after waving to Simon. The suicide investigators of the city happily claim that
the neighborhood has the highest suicide rate. They also bet among them that if
the twitchy Simon would commit suicide or not. Soon, Simon’s nightmares reach a
breaking point when James Simon is hired by his company – Simon James’ physical
twin and personal opposite. But, no one in the office or anywhere else seems to
notice the similarity. They just chuckle over this fact. James succeeds every
where the faltering Simon fails. He dazzles the hotheaded boss (Shawn Wallace)
and seduces the boss’ rebellious daughter (Yasmin Paige). James is also a
back-stabber as he takes credit for Simon’s unrecognized, yet genius work and
also hooks up with Hannah.
Director Ayoade is best known for his acting roles in TV
series ‘Dark Place’ and ‘IT Crowd.’ He made his directorial debut in 2010
“Submarine”, a nostalgic romantic coming-of-age-tale, set in the 1980’s Wales. It
was an unusually good modern romantic tale, but “The Double” a particular
aesthetic style to his direction. He has taken a big leap by tautly bringing up
a powerful nightmarish cinema, tinged with black comedy. Two movies came to my
mind when watching the characters and ruthless bureaucratic setting: Terry
Gilliam’s “Brazil” (1985) and Orson Welles’ “The Trial” (1962) – adapted from a
Kafka’s dystopian tale. Ayoade and Avi Korine’s script sets the tale in an
authoritarian dictatorship (run by a man called “The Colonel”), as seen in the
propaganda campaign, run on TV. They have included a oddball romance, and
deadpan humor to bring naturalism to an otherwise schizophrenic tale.
Ayoade’s direction shares the intricacies of Gilliam
(plaster-faced old women and clanking office machines) and Michael Gondry, as
“Enemy” shared Cronenberg’s and Lynch’s. Like “Brazil”, Ayoade makes it more a
psychological study than a thriller. It repeatedly acknowledges that we are
just random cogs built into a rumbling machine to run the world. At one level,
we are eager to see how Simon will resist James, even though we know it all
will end badly. On the other hand, we could feel that it’s just a parable for
the conflict between our real personalities against our foreboding environment,
to wish for something emotionally grander.
Jesse Eisenberg is
turning out to be a superior actor at shifting persona, with only using his
expression and posture. There is no confusion as to who is the lonely and
ecstatic guy. The interplay between him and Wasikowska gives both the tension
and the charms. Eisenberg is signed up for playing Super Man’s super villain
‘Lex Luthor’ in the upcoming Superman-Batman movie. Watching him in “The
Double”, you could feel that it is a commendable choice.
Director Ayoade finely juxtaposes the hollow cheerful
Colonel’s ad-campaigns with the grim viewers. But, for the most part the
political parable aspect remains invisible. If the director has given equal
importance to the environment’s politics as much as Simon/James personality
would have reached great heights like the aforementioned works from the
auteurs. However, despite all these influences “The Double” (92 minutes)
possess something original (even in Dostoyevsky's time, his tale is not
considered original) and an artistic courage to confront a nightmare.
An American unbiased war movie is as hard to find as an
untheatrical Bollywood movie. And, especially after 9/11 and ‘war-on-terror’,
Marines, CIA and NSA in American films have waged numerous battles in the
Middle-East. No other film industry in the world is as efficient as Hollywood
in incorporating the fear or feeling that there is some out there to harm their
country (even from outer space). In the cold war, we had numerous American
actors speaking English with a Russian accent (the latest one is Kenneth
Branagh in “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit”). For the past decade, they hired
talented Middle-East actors to play ‘bad Arab’ and ‘good, faithful Arab’ (recent
example is “Lone Survivor”). A pro-war movie would show shattered bodies of
enemies as American Marines walk over them in glory. The offensive terms they
use to call their enemies might have changed (like ‘Krauts’, ‘gooks’), but
there is always a dangerous enemy. Auteurs like Oliver Stone, Coppola and
Stanley Kubrick have made excellent anti-war movies, but they are often accused
of clinging to a particular ideology and of insulting the memories of a common
soldier fallen in the battle front.
Personally, I believe in the statement ‘War Is Hell’ and would
highly rate anti-war statements made in the likes of “Apocalypse Now”, “Full
Metal Jacket.” But, is it really possible to make a war movie without giving
way to balance than bias? Director Frank J. Schaffner’s“Patton” (1970) is one
of the answers to such a question. The eight Academy Award winning film, was
not only an ambiguous war movie, but also a fascinating character study. Although,
“Patton” wanted audience to read the film the way he/she wanted to, it is
wrongly depicted as a pro-war movie. It is referenced that President Richard
Nixon was inspired by this movie to escalate the Vietnam War. Made on a budget
of $12 million, “Patton” singularly depicts the weakness and strengths of Gen.
George Patton Jr., an undiplomatic World War II war hero.
“Patton” has one of the most magnificent opening scenes.
Impressively uniformed George Patton (George C. Scott) stands at attention in
the backdrop of a huge American flag. With a stern expression, he delivers the
famous ‘kick them in the ass’ speech and emphasizes his military philosophy. We
then go to Kasserine Pass, Tunisia, situated in North Africa. It is 1943, and
the American forces have recently suffered a terrible loss in the Battle of
Kasserine Pass. General Omar Bradley (Karl Maden) decides that his army needs
the best tank commander against the blustering German corps. Patton arrives to
take command of the de-moralized US force. He fiercely disciplines them and
prepares the force for fighting against notable German Rommel (Karl Michael
Vogler) at El Guettar. Patton’s no-nonsense attitude clinches a victory in the
Battle of El Guettar. From North Africa, Patton moves his forces to Sicily,
sweeping across the island to take ‘Palermo.’
The victory also brings a strong desire for Patton to fight
for fame against the other prominent figure of Allies -- British Field Marshal
Bernard Montgomery (Michael Bates). The invasion of Sicily flares up these
men’s rivalry as Patton races to take over the city of Messina, even though
he’s been ordered to stand by. All of Patton’s bravado and victory reaches a
threshold point, when he physically and verbally abuses a soldier distressed by
‘battle fatigue.’ The newspapers ridicule him by comparing with the Nazis, while
the bureaucrats demanded a direct apology from him. Patton offers a public
apology, but he gets side-lined in the Allied forces of invasion of Europe. Patton
is asked to keep his mouth shut, but his flaring speeches provide sensational
news for journalists and create a ruckus for the politicians. At last, he is
only used as a decoy during the Normandy invasion. However, Patton’s last
glorious stride starts when he is granted command of the Third Army, which won
over the last major Nazi force.
“Patton” is not just
a biographical account of a military general. It is about a solitary man with
self-imposed beliefs, who refuses to come to grips with the complexities of the
20th century. "Through the travail of ages, Midst the pomp
and toils of war, Have I fought and strove and perished, Countless times upon a
star. As if through a glass, and darkly, The age-old strife I see, For I fought
in many guises, many names, But always me." Patton utters this poem as
he stands on the battlefield when the Carthaginians fought the Romans,
centuries ago. The film is imbued with moments like this, where he yearningly
recalls ancient battles, believing that he actually took part in them. In
another scene, after explaining his invasion plan for Sicily, a general
comment, “You know, George, you’d have made a great marshal for Napoleon, if
you’d lived in 18th century.” Patton answers him by saying, “Oh but
I did sir, I did.” He is a military historian obsessed with the strategies
followed in old battles. In yet another scene, he simply shoots two mules
blocking the bridge without hesitation. However, director Schaffner doesn’t
limit our views of Patton with these incidents. On an exterior account, Patton
is easier to judge, but when the movie starts contemplating his internal
emotions that is where it becomes complex.
In real life, the slapping incident is mostly said to be
seen as a symbol of Patton’s implacable hostility. But, the film offers the
internal conflict that goes inside him. We sense the dilemma inside him as he
is about to sacrifice his troops for gaining glory against Montgomery. He slaps
the soldier after this dilemma and immediately after praying for a heavily injured
man, awarding him the ‘Purple Heart.’ He seems irked at that fatigued guy,
because he somehow hates his own decision and the word’ coward’ is more
self-directed. Patton’s life also showcases the contrasting dualities we all
possess. He is a historian, well versed in the campaigns of Romans, Napoleon,
Grant and Lee, but he couldn’t grasp the idea of psychology. He thinks that a
man could only be shattered by bullets, not by psychological pain. Like,
Patton, we might have studied a lot, but one or other time we would find hard
to rein ourselves when our ego takes the better of us. A clergyman asks Patton,
whether he has time to read Bible. He answers, “Every Goddamn Day!” The simple
one-liner depicts the contrasting characters of Paton: a highly religious man,
who also known for his cursing and temper.
“Patton's” another important theme lies in detailing the absurdity
of self-righteousness. Wars have always brain-washed the whole population, good
and bad ones alike, making them think that their side is the right side. In
America and Britain, during World War II, a false sense of self-righteousness
took hold and the people were brain-washed, as thousands of innocent civilians
in Japan and Germany got incinerated. The media unleashed racism on Japanese,
but suppressed the capitalist rhetoric for the sake of Russian allies and
anti-fascist enemies. All kinds of lies joined hands in the name of patriotism.
The same thing happened in Germany and in the end, lies exhumed with bodies found
in concentration camps. This false sense of self-righteousness is well handled
in “Patton.” Since we see the film from a war-obsessed guy’s point of view, we
get increasingly mindful of the fact that wars are not about showing one’s
patriotic feelings; it’s just an event for politicians and military leaders to
seek glory.
Does “Patton” glorifies hard-line militarism or does it satirize
the circumstance? Even in the first scene, this question arises. As he stands
before the huge American flag, delivering the rousing speech (“we’re not
holding onto anything except the enemy; we’re going to hold him by the nose and
we’re going to kick him in the ass!”), we could see both a fierce and
ridiculous individual. The same question pops up at various junctions in the
movie, and the answer could be derived according to your own standpoint. During
its release, many critics is said to have criticized Edmund North and Coppola’s script, and
Schaffner’s direction for failing to take a stand on Patton. But, it is this
ambiguity that has given the classic and timeless quality for the film.
Patton belongs to an era, where warriors ruled over a
country. His spirits have soared only when there is a war. He doesn’t see the
victory in the battle as his triumph. In the end, as the Russians celebrate
over Allies victory, he just sits in a table with a reclusive look. And,
further he makes statements claiming that he will wage war over Russians before
they become a trouble. He might have been hated by millions, but think what
would have happened if he had been born in the era of Alexander or Napoleon.
History would have bestowed him with accolades. But, in the period of
bureaucracy and diplomacy, he is just used as a tool. At the very end, Patton
soliloquizes, relating the tale of ancient Roman war heroes. He is left alone and
walks with his dog apprehending the meaning of cautionary words: “all glory is
fleeting.”
“Patton” was shot over 18 weeks in Spain, England, Morocco,
Greece and America. Shot in 70m Dimension, Fred Koenkamp's cinematography does
full justice to the picture’s quality. The battle sequences were shot in a
grand epic style, reminiscent of David Lean movies. Apart from the war scenes,
the framing was also equally adept bringing the viewers close to the personal
moments. Director Schaffner made “Patton” after the smashing box-office success
of “Planet of the Apes” (1968). He shows a restraint that captures sweep of the
war as well as the intimacy of the characters. George C. Scott didn’t act as
Patton. He looks as if he has crawled into the skin of the general (watch
documentaries or footage of Patton to see how accurately he is portrayed). Since
Scott, didn’t believe in warfare, he was able to capture both the violence and
the vulnerability of his character. As Bradley, Karl Malden gives a wonderful
performance, but gets dwarfed alongside Scott’s unstoppable performance.
Real Vs Reel 'Patton'
Those who have very detailed knowledge about World War II
might find factual and technical errors in the movie, but for the most part it
is reasonably realistic. Some might complain the cartoonish depiction of
British Field Marshal Montgomery, or the wooden acting by supporting players. I
feel these flaws are insignificant when compared with the large scope of the
film.
“Patton” (171 minutes) can’t be categorized as a ‘World War
II movie.’ It is a historical drama, which de-constructs the enigmas
surrounding a war hero or a warrior. It provides a throbbing awareness about
the ultimate complexities present within a war.
When I watched “X-Men: Last Stand” in 2006, I thought that ‘X-Men’
is yet another trilogy with a weakest final installment. The origin story of “Wolverine”
although induced some interest, it was no were near ‘X2.’ At that time, from
the business perspective, X-Men seemed to have reached its sell-by date. But,
Matthew Vaughn’s terrific prequel ‘X-Men: First Class’ expanded the mutant gene
pool by imbuing rich details and inventive set pieces. Last year’s “Wolverine”
turned to be an average fare. However, at the end of the movie, we were hinted
about a time travel theme, which might once again unite all mutant forces. Director
Bryan Singer once again returned to franchise after ‘X2’ and we hoped for the biggest,
most daring adventure yet. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (2014)
has made all our hopes come true as it re-energizes the franchise with innovative
action, levity and a gripping emotional core.
In time-travel films, all catastrophic events of the present
are traced back to a single event. The entire world’s hope would then rest on a
particular man, who takes on a mission, bound back in time and keep the said
event from happening. “Days of Future Past” follows the same drill. It is 2023.
The sky looks stormy and greyed-out because the mutants-killing ‘Sentinels’
have taken over control of world. Manhattan and Moscow are wrecked. Professor
Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellan) and Wolverine
(Hugh Jackman) and some other mutants are confined to a Chinese safe house. Kitty
Pryde/Shadow Cat (Ellen Page) must use her special abilities to send Logan’s
mind into his body in 1973, so that he can amass a team to alter the future.
Logan first needs to convince young Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) about the mission. The job is to stop
Mystique/Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) from murdering Trask (Peter Dinklage), an
assassination that will only escalate Trask’s Sentinel programme. Trask does Nazi-like
experiments on mutants and hopes to get his hands on some DNA, believing that it
would better equip his “Sentinels” to save the human race. But, the problem for
Logan is that Professor X has lost all hopes and Magneto is imprisoned in the
Pentagon for killing JFK.
Scriptwriter Simon Kinberg’s pithy one-liners and expository
dialogues might serve well for franchise fans. The cheerful changes of pace
within the serious drama provoke plenty of laughs. The great numbers of
characters are never clumsily managed. The time travel theme allows Kinberg to
bring up Vietnam War, Richard Nixon and even JFK’s assassination. The wrongness
of homophobia, racism and war are briefly explored. After the disastrous “Jack
the Giant Slayer”, Singer redeems himself with this film. He melds the past and
the future together and riddles us with metaphors that can be enjoyed even by
the uninitiated audiences. Singer is interested in showing mutants with
singular gifts as figures in a larger plan rather than blessing a particular
superhero with a superior screen-time.
Half-dozen sub-plots, crosscutting events between past and
present and a lot of gloomy exchanges doesn’t bog down the action adventure.
The action set pieces, exhibited here, are one of the best of the genre. The
wonderful time-freezing sequence, where ‘Quick Silver’ rearranges bullets and
peoples on their tracks is a classic sequence that is worthy of the audiences’
applause. As lightning-fast ‘Quick Silver’ Evan Peters steals
every scene he is in. Placing a football stadium into a corral around the White
House and the Sentinels descending from their coffin-shaped air-crafts gives a
fine surrealistic feeling. All these delicious special effects are well contained
without eating into movie’s emotional convictions.
Fassbender and McAvoy delicately unleash their pent-up
feelings. Jackman’s Wolverine, although cursed to suffer the torment of having
his consciousness exist in two time frames, seems to be having great fun. Patrick
Stewart once again excellently delivers his monologues. Jennifer Lawrence’s eyes
evoke the chill fury of a hunter and waning smile of a hunted. Since she spends
most of her time running, there aren’t many character moments for her. Game of
Thrones fame Peter Dinklage’s Trask is more than a regular mad tyrant of
Hollywood. His survival in the end, gives us hope to possibly see the actor doing
a even more complicated villain in the upcoming “X-Men: Apocalypse.” Halle
Berry, Ellen Page and the rest of the high-priced cast sleepwalks through their
roles.
Banal dialogues sometimes null the pacing and the rewriting of
entire X-Men history may give us a feeling that, in the past we sat through X-Men
movies that never happened. However, the climax offers pleasures, which locks
many plot threads and teasingly opens others. Although “X-Men: Days of Future
Past” (130 minutes) is a superhero movie and a product of a studio giant, it finely
attempts at contextualizing all the fantastical action and remember that, it haven’t
stuck in a rut like the ‘SpiderMan’ movies. It’s a rare, perfect summer movie
that incorporates popcorn entertainment into an intriguing environment.
Director Joe Carnahan’s“Narc” (2002) has all the grit and
violence to attain the ‘straight-to-video’ status. It was filmed with energy
and bravado, but since it didn’t have a millions of dollars as budget, it
became a tough sell to the masses and eventually got a limited theatrical
release. “Narc” is better than a regular buddy cop thriller and it wears 70’s
tough authenticity of the police flicks, as seen in “Serpico” (1973) and “The
French Connection” (1971). Carnahan’s rough-hewn film-making style borrows a
little from diverse sources such as Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino. The
plot is straightforward and simple, but the script is tightly written, which makes
the film to rise above the generic roots.
The film opens with a nauseating, hysterical hand-held foot
chase as undercover cop Nick Tellis (Jason Patric) chases down a psychotic
junkie, scrambling over the fences and through the projects. The chase comes to
an end, when the junkie pus a knife to child’s throat. Tellis has already lost
one innocent bystander to this junkie, so without thinking he fires the gun
incessantly. The junkie gets hit in the head. The child is not injured, but a
stray bullet hits the kid's pregnant mother, filling the pavement with blood.
Following the shooting incident, Detroit narcotics officer Tellis is sent off
the force for nearly 18 months. Tellis also went through a rough detox program
as his wife pregnant stood by him. At home he broods over his infant son. The
restless Tellis was given an opportunity by homicide captain Cheevers (Chi McBride).
He has to solve the murder of undercover officer Michael
Calvess (Alan Van Sprang), a crime that has no single lead. Tellis’ wife is
once again afraid that he will put them through a private hell, but he
eventually agrees to investigate the cop murder. He also asks for Calvess’
devoted ex-partner Henry Oak (Ray Liotta) to share the case’s burden. Oak has
93% conviction rate but also known for his short temper. We follow the course
of investigation as the detectives move through a unimaginably dingy crack
house, where a pathetic junkie has inadvertently vaporized his own skull with a
shotgun, while trying to use it as a bong. We also get to know about the
straining relationship between Tellis and his wife, and also about Oak’s
personal sad story.
Viewers who have seen lot of cop TV shows and movies are
liable to feel themselves like law officers, easily recognizing when and why
someone is lying. The story of ‘Narc’ looks similar to these TV shows, but the
gripping script keeps you guessing and care about the characters. Ultimately,
you might feel less about the why’s of the investigation and concern more about
the responses of the two central characters. Contrary to Hollywood’s buddy cop
formula, Tellis and Oak never fits together. One guy ready to chuck out rules
for justice, while the other play by the rules, even though he is battling the
drug demons. The swaggers of the police investigations are stripped down because
mainly the script never forgets about its characters’ vulnerability. Carnahan
imbues a lot of energy through smacks of stylish film-making tricks. He uses
the stark, colorless wintry climate of Detroit to reflect the fuzzy mindset of
Tellis. The hyper-stylized techniques, as seen in Oliver Stone’s movies, never
threaten to overwhelm the story and characters. Nonetheless, Carnahan could
have kept down some of the repetitive flashbacks, visual stress and the
constant emphasis.
Both Patric and Ray Liotta sink their teeth into such
complex characters. The understated edgy portrayal of Patric is riveting. He
fills Tellis with a boiling anxiety. Liotta, who is often seen in nonsensical
B-movies, gets a good role and he happily tears into it. He exudes the unstable
state and frustration that comes with investigating such violent crimes. The
lack of a solid conclusion (ends with an ironic close-up of a tape-recorder,
where the truth may or may not be captured) may leave the viewers wanting more,
but those who only expected a explosive buddy cop movie will be immensely
satisfied.
“Narc” (105 minutes) effectively transcends the cop thriller
genre and is never afraid to take us into darker truths. It’s worth a watch for
its multifaceted character and deeply felt performances.
Many tribal societies have been patriarchal, where the
concepts like female chief or leader is considered as abominable and an insult
to Gods. In the modernized world, men from these societies have mostly
forgotten their tradition and proud ancestry, embracing all the good’s and
bad’s (alcohol) of Western world, but still view the idea of female empowerment
as unthinkable. Ancient Maori tribes of New Zealand follow a religious custom
to look for a boy, gifted with mystic abilities, to be their chieftain. Although
the desolate Maori lands have fallen into the hands of colonizers, some of them
fiercely believe in the 1,000 year old legend. A chief may not really descend
from a whale to crusade against the invaders, but these were the only few
ancient customs that might impart the next generation with the information of
who they were and where did they came from?
Lee Tamohari’s highly successful 1994 film “Once Were
Warriors” painted a grim portrait about the Maori men, who have deigned from
being great warriors to alcoholics and wife-beaters. However, director Niki Caro’s adaptation of Witi Ihimaera’s 1986 novel “Whale Rider” (2002) possesses
a deeply spiritual message about powerful patriarchal tradition and feel-good
factor that might resonate with women all over the universe. It addresses the
subject of the modern survival of indigenous people by presenting a more
optimistic point-of-view than “Once Were Warriors.” The story takes place in a
small fishing village in the eastern coast of New Zealand. The people are
called ‘Whangara’, who believe in the legend of Paikea – demi-god ancestor
arrived in New Zealand on the back of a whale. Since then, the first born of
the Paikea descendant is considered as Whangara chieftain.
Koro aka Paka (Rawiri Paratene) is the chief of this tribe,
who is fed up with the hard modern times. He becomes extremely disappointed
when his first-born son Porourangi (Cliff Curtis) exhibits no interest in
becoming the next chief. When his son’s wife gets pregnant he hopes for a
grandson to lead his tribe. But, unfortunately the still-born baby boy and his
mother dies, leaving out a twin sister. Porourangi against his father’s wish
names the girl Paikea. Grief-stricken Porourangi leaves Pai in the care of his
father and mother Nanny Flowers (Vicky Haughton), and leaves abroad to continue
his sculpting works. Pai (Keisha Castle-Hughes), now aged 12, often feels
Koro's disappointment that she survived. But, Koro, in his own way loves Pai.
Considering his early frustrations, he has bonded well with Pai, since he picks
her up every day from school on his bicycle.
Grandma Flowers provides all the moral support Pai needs and
often jokes about divorcing Koro. Porourangi’s return from Germany flares all
the old conflicts. He seems estranged and makes clear that he has no intention
of becoming Koro’s successor. He also reveals that he is now expecting a child
with a German girlfriend and also convinces Pai to come with him to Germany. Pai
gets ready to take the trip with her father, but the mystic beauty of her
coastal village pulls her back. She joyously stands before Paka saying “I’m
Back”, but her craggy granddad only concentrates on opening a sacred school to
educate local boys in the old ways. For Koro, tradition outweighs affection and
so he ignores her. But, the strong-willed Pai defy all the odds to break Koro’s
rigidity.
The success of an under-dog story is determined by the characters
with whom we must empathize, and the harsh environment he/she overcomes. Niki
Caro’s script and her actors own all these fine attributes. The script deftly
balances domestic drama, humor and the fantasy element. Although the key events
in an under-dog story are fairly predictable, Caro retains the emotional and
intellectual honesty till the end, so that most of the time, things don’t get
formulaic.Writer/director Caro is not a
Maori but her respect for the culture is evident, as she is said to have taken
great pains to ensure the authenticity of the film, by hiring Maori advisors
and indigenous extras, and by filming in the actual place where the book is set.
The important theme of the novel and film is female empowerment, but there is
no feminist smugness, which might have showcased that all men are villains. Since
all the characters are three-dimensional, we get to regard the story from their
point-of-view. The story also has a perfect ending, where the magical presence
of majestic Whales merges the thousand year old legend with the new,
contemporary beliefs.
Keisha Castle Hughes’s (who has never acted before) Pai is
one of the best, nuanced child performances you might have ever seen on-screen.
She is confident and strongly motivated, and yet locks in the fragility of a child.
Keisha’s speech in the school event may wring some tears out of your eyes,
since her emotional withdrawal is entirely believable. Her subtle vocal cues,
predicament and expressive eyes are what make the movie more touching. Rawiri
Paratene as Koro makes us picture our own granddads or great granddads who all
had enough love in their hearts but rather got fiercely attached to old values
and beliefs. Rawiri impeccably depicts an old man who couldn’t escape the
rigidity of his upbringing.
“Whale Rider” (97 minutes) is an uplifting, universal tale
that richly conveys how a little girl finds her true place among her people. It
embraces both the fanciful beliefs of past-times and the new paths of modern
world.
Whenever we hear the word ‘spy thriller’ the names such as
Bond and Jason Bourne comes to our mind and along with them we visualize
death-defying stunts, gorgeous female leads and high-octane chases. The super-spies of post World War II, cold-war and war on terror era have left out
an indelible impression that their jobs are filled with jubilant adventures.
However, if we could apply reason, we could ascertain that mind, not guns and
fists matter in the spy game. In the early 60’s, British novelist John le Carre
began spy novels that are grounded in reality. His famous protagonist ‘George
Smiley’ was physically simple, anti-social and emotionally cold. In short, he
possessed none of the characters of Bond.
Carre’s 1974 novel “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” went in for
bureaucratic realism inside the British spy agency. In 1979, the novel was
adapted by BBC television. Alec Guiness played George Smiley in the miniseries.
But, a faithful adaptation of Carre’s novel into a movie still remained as a
challenge. The narrative must be dense and there can’t be any room for mindless
action sequence. Nearly four decades later (after the novel’s publication),
director Tomas Alfredson’s adaptation of “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”(2011) possessed all the perfect ingredients of Carre’s story and also retained
contemporary relevance, reminding us that the ethical ambiguities of today’s Geo-politics is as complex as that of the cold war era.
The film is set in 1973. There’s a Russian mole in the
British Secret Intelligence Services, commonly referred as the ‘Circus.’ Control
(John Hurt), the leader of MI6 suspects that the mole planted by the Soviets is
among the top circle. Control dispatches an agent named Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) to Budapest, Hungary is discover more details about the mole. But, the
job gets botched and Jim lies in a pool of blood. The clumsy event also costs
the job of Control and his devoted lieutenant George Smiley (Gary Oldman). The other
seniors of the Intelligence agency are: the elegant Bill Haydon (Colin Firth);
the meddlesome Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) – 'circus’ new leader; the morbid Roy
Bland (Ciaran Hinds); and the submissive East European expert Toby Esterhase
(David Dencik).
Alleline says he’s got a source inside Soviet intelligence
and he runs ‘Operation Witchcraft’ by the information gained from the source.
Smiley, before his resignation, makes clear to the top brass that he is
skeptical about Alleline’s sources. Months after Control’s death, rogue agent
named Ricki Tarr (Hardy) calls a government minister (Simon McBurney) and says
that a Soviet mole has infiltrated the top circles of Circus. The minister secretly
re-hires Smiley to discover the identity of the double agent. Smiley sets out
to find which of his four former colleagues is the mole? Smiley’s man inside
the ‘circus’ is a young, active agent Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch). By
connecting missed out dots and digging up past records, Smiley plays a brain
game with the most intelligent and ruthless operative of Moscow Center,
codenamed "Karla."
‘A group of great British actors, sitting around a table and
talk’ – this was the last thing you expect from a spy thriller, but this is
what exactly happens. At times, the story is hard to follow and the pace is too
slow, but if you prefer gun fights and one-liners over proper English diction
and effective, real tense situation then you might never cherish this film. Wearing
over-sized glasses, Gary Oldman exhibits a magnificent stillness which is a
spectacle to behold. He remains as the silent observer – takes in details,
weighs them down and then builds a larger picture. In one of the early scene,
Smiley rides in a car with young agents. A bee gets in. While the others thrash
their arms, Smiley quietly rolls down his window and lets out the bee. Even
that obscure scene, tells us about the character of Smiley and the way he
unobtrusively conducts the espionage. The self-contained emotions of Oldman
speak a lot than a dramatic grandstanding performance.
The script by Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan employs
a complex flashback structure which often cuts to the past without any explicit
indications. On the surface, the story consists of a simple mystery, but the
script possesses shades of gray (like the novel), implying that the heroes and
villains are hard to come by in the real world. It’s hard to cram an intricate
story into a two hour movie. So, some drabs of information might not make sense
and some details might seem murky. But, this was meant to be like that. The
party flashback scene that keeps recurring in parts looks very innocent at
first, but each recurrence hints that something sinister is lurking in the
background. Swedish director Tomas Alfredson (“Let the Right One In”) recreates
the paranoia of 70’s and 80’s, with a palette dominated by grays and browns (filmed
by ace cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema). He plays up the paranoia
effectively, making each new disclosure engrossing. The patience he exhibits in
telling the story is remarkable.
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (125 minutes) imparts us with a
feeling that the spy work is not a glory-seeking job, but a painstaking process,
conducted inside labyrinthine offices. It’s not an award-bait film. It demands
patience and concentration from the viewers and in return it gives a
captivating movie experience, without insulting our intelligence.
