Even though we are 10? 11? weeks away from Christmas, I'm already starting to feel the inevitable panic, and 'buy! buy! buy!' screams inside my head. What if I'm snowed in, I MUST be prepared and organised surely? There's something about Christmas that evokes irrational thought processes and, at times, rubbish present buying. Why are people who you see and speak to all year round suddenly so damn hard to buy for? I'm flummoxed by the sheer choice on the internet and flustered by my indecisiveness in shops. I sincerely hope I'm not the only one. I know the old lines, 'it's the thought that counts', or 'I don't want anything, really!' but they do nothing to rid me of my festive unease. People pleasing is hard.
Now, back to vaguely thinking of merry little parcels of joy. Or mediocre tat in my case.
Sunday 9 October 2011
Wednesday 21 September 2011
The end of an era
So, the final film has been released, and it's safe to say the movie buzz has died down. The main question is, does Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 live up to the hype and expectation? Yes and no.
The film inevitably had a monumental burden to bear, being the final thread in what is arguably the most successful book and film franchise in history. In this vein, the film could never live up to the heightened expectations of Potterites across the globe, especially those that have read the books. There are noticeable changes, most of which aren't of major importance, but that still didn't stop me from silently thinking 'well THAT'S different to the book!' It's safe to say that the significance of the film prompted a slightly more critical response from me.
I'd be doing an incredible disservice to the film however if I based the entire review on my thoughts above. Pt 2 is still stunningly epic, tinged with impending doom, sadness and a very human story at its centre. Again I think that the film consciously chooses to focus upon the three leading protagonists, at the expense of some of the other favourite characters, plotlines and deaths. I'd suggest that this would perhaps be the main perceived weakness of the film as a whole. We see the Weasleys and members of the Order of the Phoenix fleetingly which may not be to everybody's liking. In the book, there is a significant conversation with Aberforth, Dumbledore's brother, which neatly ties up Dumbledore's background story. Wisely in this instance, the film chooses to not focus heavily on this aspect of the book, ensuring that the film maintains its fast past and stance as an epic finale. The Severus Snape by-line was handled sensitively and effectively, and in all honesty this was the only character fatality which evoked any emotion. Within Snape's memories we see flashbacks of previous films giving the perfect level of nostalgia, as well as snippets of Snape's early childhood which is intertwined with Harry's parents story. Despite my stated misgivings and loyalties to the book, I'm pleased that Pt 2 homes in on Harry in particular. The numerous deaths of much loved characters are, in my opinion, understated (not dismissed as some have said) which merely enhances the fact that this is Harry's struggle, against both Voldemort and himself. To reiterate this further, the final parts of the film focus mainly on Harry, and the inner demons and the revelation that he has to come to terms with. I would suggest that this is a fitting ending to a story which is, after all, Harry's.
The film certainly fulfils the visually spectacular requirement. A few minutes into Pt 2 we witness the trio breaking into Gringotts Bank in their hunt for elusive horcruxes, thus encountering a dragon; the preparation for battle and the Hogwarts battle itself is epically satisfying; the trio's expedition into the Room of Requirement ends in snake-like flames and Harry's final desperate showdown with Voldemort are specific examples. Not visually stimulating but equally loyal to the book is Harry's reunion with Dumbledore in a poignant scene at King's Cross station. This scene easily stands up to the aforementioned spectacles, and it is shot and acted perfectly. Also pleasingly, characters fulfil their destinies, good triumphs over evil and relationships are strengthened and affirmed. Specifically, Hermione and Ron finally reveal their true feelings for each other (in a rather fleeting moment I felt, though it was followed by rapturous applause in the cinema) and Neville finally transcends his wimpy stereotype and plays a key role in ending Voldemort once and for all, albeit fairly brief on-screen.
The person that I saw the film with commented that 'more of the book fighting should have been included'. I understand this cynicism, but I think David Yates crafted a perfectly satisfying film in the sense that spectacular set pieces and CGI did not overshadow the true heart of the story, that of relationships, sacrifice and self examination. Pt 2 ends 19 years later where we inevitably see that the trio have married their true loves and are preparing to send their children, the next generation of witches and wizards, to Hogwarts. For me, this was the most emotional part of the film, as David Yates cleverly lingers on their (supposedly) older faces in the closing shot, a final goodbye to the characters which we have followed diligently for the past ten years.
Goodbye old friend.
The film inevitably had a monumental burden to bear, being the final thread in what is arguably the most successful book and film franchise in history. In this vein, the film could never live up to the heightened expectations of Potterites across the globe, especially those that have read the books. There are noticeable changes, most of which aren't of major importance, but that still didn't stop me from silently thinking 'well THAT'S different to the book!' It's safe to say that the significance of the film prompted a slightly more critical response from me.
I'd be doing an incredible disservice to the film however if I based the entire review on my thoughts above. Pt 2 is still stunningly epic, tinged with impending doom, sadness and a very human story at its centre. Again I think that the film consciously chooses to focus upon the three leading protagonists, at the expense of some of the other favourite characters, plotlines and deaths. I'd suggest that this would perhaps be the main perceived weakness of the film as a whole. We see the Weasleys and members of the Order of the Phoenix fleetingly which may not be to everybody's liking. In the book, there is a significant conversation with Aberforth, Dumbledore's brother, which neatly ties up Dumbledore's background story. Wisely in this instance, the film chooses to not focus heavily on this aspect of the book, ensuring that the film maintains its fast past and stance as an epic finale. The Severus Snape by-line was handled sensitively and effectively, and in all honesty this was the only character fatality which evoked any emotion. Within Snape's memories we see flashbacks of previous films giving the perfect level of nostalgia, as well as snippets of Snape's early childhood which is intertwined with Harry's parents story. Despite my stated misgivings and loyalties to the book, I'm pleased that Pt 2 homes in on Harry in particular. The numerous deaths of much loved characters are, in my opinion, understated (not dismissed as some have said) which merely enhances the fact that this is Harry's struggle, against both Voldemort and himself. To reiterate this further, the final parts of the film focus mainly on Harry, and the inner demons and the revelation that he has to come to terms with. I would suggest that this is a fitting ending to a story which is, after all, Harry's.
The film certainly fulfils the visually spectacular requirement. A few minutes into Pt 2 we witness the trio breaking into Gringotts Bank in their hunt for elusive horcruxes, thus encountering a dragon; the preparation for battle and the Hogwarts battle itself is epically satisfying; the trio's expedition into the Room of Requirement ends in snake-like flames and Harry's final desperate showdown with Voldemort are specific examples. Not visually stimulating but equally loyal to the book is Harry's reunion with Dumbledore in a poignant scene at King's Cross station. This scene easily stands up to the aforementioned spectacles, and it is shot and acted perfectly. Also pleasingly, characters fulfil their destinies, good triumphs over evil and relationships are strengthened and affirmed. Specifically, Hermione and Ron finally reveal their true feelings for each other (in a rather fleeting moment I felt, though it was followed by rapturous applause in the cinema) and Neville finally transcends his wimpy stereotype and plays a key role in ending Voldemort once and for all, albeit fairly brief on-screen.
The person that I saw the film with commented that 'more of the book fighting should have been included'. I understand this cynicism, but I think David Yates crafted a perfectly satisfying film in the sense that spectacular set pieces and CGI did not overshadow the true heart of the story, that of relationships, sacrifice and self examination. Pt 2 ends 19 years later where we inevitably see that the trio have married their true loves and are preparing to send their children, the next generation of witches and wizards, to Hogwarts. For me, this was the most emotional part of the film, as David Yates cleverly lingers on their (supposedly) older faces in the closing shot, a final goodbye to the characters which we have followed diligently for the past ten years.
Goodbye old friend.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Going to school pays...doesn't it?
I've been watching Jamie's Dream School with some fascination. When I first saw the advertisement, I was instantly intrigued at the concept of a school operating outside the normal parameters of educational rules and regulations. The basic premise is that chef Jamie Oliver establishes a school for a few weeks, where famous people gifted in particular subject areas come and teach disadvantaged and disregarded teenagers who are academic failures. It was the famous teachers which mainly interested me; what kind of teaching style would they adopt, and in fact would they be any good at forming a relationship with the supposed 'failed' youth of today? I'll admit I was also slightly cynical, as Jamie seems to be single-handedly attempting to reform all aspects of society whether it is needed or not.
To be honest, I was shocked at the sheer disregard and disrespect that the 'wronged' students consistently displayed to each other, the headmaster, and even the highly respected men and women who are at the forefront of their field, giving up their valuable time to become the school's teachers.Yes, in some way we are meant to pity these young adults who have not benefited from the educational system, who feel their skills lie outside of academia and who feel let-down and marginalised by a system which fails to include them. I understand what Jamie is attempting to highlight, that nurturing and manipulation of the current educational structure needs to support people who struggle with rules and obedience, socialisation, anger, even the basics of English and maths.
However, I felt far from sympathetic for the majority of students that he had selected to attend Dream School. Lots have severe emotional and behavioural troubles, which often manifested into angry and violent confrontations. I'm from a very distinct academic background; I've always felt completely at ease within that environment, so it would be true to argue that I wouldn't understand the feeling of alienation which I'm sure these students would proclaim to feel. But their simple lack of manners was truly astounding. I'll admit that I felt a certain level of jealousy, and that they did not deserve the opportunity that was being given to them. Being taught history by Dr David Starkey? Science by Professor Robert Winston? Shakespeare by Simon Callow? They clearly did not appreciate the level of sacrifice that was given to them. Certainly, it felt like their insolence was being rewarded by having some of this country's greatest minds teaching them in a very specialised way. I have worked hard throughout my entire education, yet I was never rewarded with anything on this scale. It begs the question really, does hard-work, mild manners and a high level of respect pay off? If Jamie's Dream School is anything to go by, then no.
To be honest, I was shocked at the sheer disregard and disrespect that the 'wronged' students consistently displayed to each other, the headmaster, and even the highly respected men and women who are at the forefront of their field, giving up their valuable time to become the school's teachers.Yes, in some way we are meant to pity these young adults who have not benefited from the educational system, who feel their skills lie outside of academia and who feel let-down and marginalised by a system which fails to include them. I understand what Jamie is attempting to highlight, that nurturing and manipulation of the current educational structure needs to support people who struggle with rules and obedience, socialisation, anger, even the basics of English and maths.
However, I felt far from sympathetic for the majority of students that he had selected to attend Dream School. Lots have severe emotional and behavioural troubles, which often manifested into angry and violent confrontations. I'm from a very distinct academic background; I've always felt completely at ease within that environment, so it would be true to argue that I wouldn't understand the feeling of alienation which I'm sure these students would proclaim to feel. But their simple lack of manners was truly astounding. I'll admit that I felt a certain level of jealousy, and that they did not deserve the opportunity that was being given to them. Being taught history by Dr David Starkey? Science by Professor Robert Winston? Shakespeare by Simon Callow? They clearly did not appreciate the level of sacrifice that was given to them. Certainly, it felt like their insolence was being rewarded by having some of this country's greatest minds teaching them in a very specialised way. I have worked hard throughout my entire education, yet I was never rewarded with anything on this scale. It begs the question really, does hard-work, mild manners and a high level of respect pay off? If Jamie's Dream School is anything to go by, then no.
Tuesday 25 January 2011
The King's award winning Speech
The 2011 Oscar nominations have been announced, and it would be fair to say that The King's Speech has dominated most categories. Is it a deserved nominee?The simple answer would be yes. I held off from seeing the film immediately, namely because I was slightly dubious as to the cinematic possibilities of such a simple subject. My misgivings were allayed by the amount of positive praise that the film began to receive upon its release, so I went to see the film.
Cinematically, the film relies on the strength of its story and acting as opposed to blockbusting effects. The audience develops a level relationship with the central character Bertie, the Prince and reluctant King, via his insecurities as a man and leader which manifests itself as a speech impediment. The story is simple, perhaps even sounding rather bland. Prince Albert, suffering from a chronic stammer exacerbated by his duties to large crowds, makes one last ditch attempt to control his speech by seeing a somewhat unconventional therapist. In the course of his treatment, his father King George V dies, and his eldest brother abdicates in favour of a tempestuous relationship with an American divorcee Wallace Simpson. Thus, Bertie takes to the throne and must broadcast a live wireless announcement to the nation (and world) that the war with Germany and the Nazis has begun. Of course, his mastery of his speech impediment is a forgone conclusion. But it is the fact that the film is based on a real, albeit historical, story which is the main draw. In a modern era which is increasingly becoming disconnected from our social past as a nation, instead focusing upon economic and political turmoil, I would suggest that the audience of this film are looking to a more idealised and simplistic age. The film's backdrop of the beginning of World War Two also harks back to the age when Britain was indeed a major influence within worldwide affairs, a stance that has decreased considerably today. It is perhaps no coincidence that the audience demographic when I went to see the film were people in their later years.
The film had just the right amount of political and social context alongside the individual relationships and emotional complexities. Colin Firth's depiction of the troubled monarch was excellently pitched, demonstrating Bertie's internal struggles between his family life and impending duty as a king. In particular, Firth's interactions with Helena Bonham Carter as his wife Elizabeth, and with Geoffrey Rush as his therapist Lionel Logue, are the stand-out moments of the film. I can't really praise the acting enough, or the minute period details which are lovingly adhered to. The grandeur of Bertie's lifestyle is a stark comparison to Logue's office on Harley Street which is ironically where we meet the true insecure prince. In fact, Bertie's final achievement occurs within a small, uninspiring room inside the palace, confirming that the film is supremely relationship and interaction based.
Despite the sarcastic remark of the person I saw the film with ('well that didn't have many explosions in'), I think the film deserves all the praise and awards it can garner. It is an uplifting, accomplished tale which chooses to focus upon the human condition: our emotions, anxieties and achievements. It enforces the age-old adage that with a little bit of work and help, you too can achieve anything no matter the struggles you face. Like its topic, it harks back to a simpler cinematic age and is just as fulfilling as a 3D blockbuster epic, even more so. A true period masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)