Black Swan

Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky 2010)

Wow I’ve seen two new films this year and they’ve both been great! Fabbo. So let’s talk about Black Swan, in which Natalie Portman’s character Nina wins the lead role in a production of Swan Lake. Before we get into the plot etc (no spoilers I hope) let me start off by saying, if you assume that you would automatically brand this kind of dance related film as boring, then think again. Darren Aronofsky uses intense close ups of both the dancing itself, as well as details such as the cracking of foot and toe joints to emphasise the skill and stamina required for ballet. The close ups of the dancers’ exertions also hint at the more lethal and disturbing effects that the pressures of the dance will take on Nina later on in the film, shown in very gory detail.
Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the innocence of the White Swan and the darker cunning of the Black Swan. Nina fits the White Swan role perfectly but fellow dancer Lily (Mile Kunis) is the personification of the Black Swan, the plot charting Nina’s psychological decline as the rivalry with Lily consumes her.  She also battles to win the admiration of her manipulative director Thomas (Vincent Cassel), who makes his true intentions to Nina very clear.
The film aims to show to two sides to Nina’s personality, as the further she immerses herself into her role, the more she sees evil visions of her changing self. The idea of her slipping to the ‘dark side’ is used constantly throughout, from Nina’s choice of white and light pink clothes to her doppelganger’s shown in black, to the stark black and white decor of the interior of her flat. Indeed, the two principal locations in the film are Nina’s flat and the dance studio, both depicted as simple, sparsely decorated, and bleak. The limited number of sets adds to the claustrophobic sense of ballet taking over Nina’s existence, as she cannot escape it even at home, as her mother is herself a retired dancer. In both locations, the use of mirrors represent many things, for example: Nina’s inability to escape ballet in her own home, the idea of the contrasting ‘other’ side of her personality, and the sense of deception that the cramped rooms are bigger than they actually are.
Portman excells at portraying a woman close to breakdown, although it must be said she does this with an almost unchanging expression on her face throughout the film. But she has perfected the ‘on the verge of tears’ look.
Overall, Black Swan is a gripping thriller, which uses clever settings and cinematography to hint at the future clashes and traumas which take place towards the climax of the film. You may end up watching lots of it through your fingers, such as Nina’s mother cutting her daughter’s fingernails with scissors – your ears filled with the amplified sound of the slicing metal. But that’s OK, for it is not afraid to be a bit weird or daring, and downright intense.

World Book Night

Has anyone heard about this?

http://www.worldbooknight.org/


I hope its not about 'booing knights'. See what I did there?

I think you sign up to try and get a lot of copies of the same book and then you can give them out to people to read...if I am terribly wrong then please correct me!!

Sounds interesting though, everyone loves free stuff, and free books are always a treat. Spread the reading love

Best/Worst Books of the year...

I admit that the book in the ‘Worst Book’ section certainly wasn’t the worst book that I had read this year, but I have chosen two books by the same author to show how one book was a dream to read, and the other rather more challenging.

Best Book – Cat’s Eye, Margaret Atwood, 1988

I read Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) at the start of 2010, and greeted the opportunity to study another of this author’s work with relish. Cat’s Eye was part of my ‘Coming of Age in America’ module which I undertook this year, and deals perhaps not so much with the main character’s, Elaine’s, maturity into an adult, but on how one’s childhood can profoundly influence and shape one’s adult life. it is told mainly through flashback on the key events in Elaine’s life, from befriending a trio of girls, developing her artistic career, marrying, having children, divorcing, up until the moment of confrontation with her past.

For Elaine was not only friends with these three girls, but bullied by them. The leader of the pack is Cordelia, whose love/hate relationship with Elaine is central to the plot. For example, it is Cordelia’s decision which leaves our antagonist at the bottom of a ravine in the middle of winter, yet also inspires her to become an artist.

Elaine’s art allows for the projection for her true feelings for the people whom she has met throughout her life, even if she cannot remember exactly why she feels this way. The theme of repressed emotion is thus explored by Atwood, which language is not capable of expressing, and can only be channelled through her character’s talent for painting. Atwood cleverly hints at Elaine’s true feelings by naming her chapters after the names of Elaine’s paintings.

To be brief, Atwood’s prose in this novel is some of the finest I have read – it is so simple to read, yet entirely engrossing. It is to be commended, as whilst I re-read parts many times to find the obvious golden sentence which must have subliminally drawn me into her work, I simply could not find it. The simplicity of her writing, combined with the intriguing and personal story, cannot help but engross the reader. The use of flashback, with the middle aged Elaine confronting her teenage self, means this text is accessible to a reader of any age.

I found this book interesting for it dealt with an individual situation, yet one which many people have experienced, that of bullying. It also deals with how feelings are expressed in art, and it was a revelation to experience a writer who explains to those ignorant of the fact that art isn’t just pretty pictures, but hides traumatic experiences that NEED to be let out.

Most not enjoyable as I thought it would be book, Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood, 2003

Please don’t get me wrong, this is not a bad book by any stretch. But after reading two previous fantastic novels by Atwood, I was expecting brilliance, but got a text with interesting ideas, yet not as engrossing a story.

Oryx and Crake is a post-apocalyptic novel, set in the near (ish) future, where, at the start of the novel at least, an unknown catastrophe has destroyed human life as we know it. It is here that this novel is interesting – it is far enough into the future that it is not human life as we know it. People have been separated into two classes, those who live in compounds, the privileged, and those in the ‘pleeblands’, which conjures up images of Orwell’s description of the ‘Proles’ in 1984. The antagonist, Snowman, has survived the catastrophe, and lives near an almost superhuman group of people, whose true story is not told until the end of the novel.

And this is this novel’s shining feature. Also told in flashback, it explores the events leading up to the catastrophe. I found myself only wanting to read on with a kind of morbid fascination for what event could have destroyed the human race so efficiently, who are portrayed so disgustingly, rampant with underage porn sites etc, that at the end I wanted them to die off, and the genetically mutated superhumans seem much superior.

Maybe this is Atwood’s point – there is certainly a critique of how we are being desensitised to pain and trauma in the websites which Snowman and his friends look at as teenagers. But it was also these passages that felt most awkwardly written. I find it almost embarrassing when authors say such things as ‘DVD player’ or ‘cellphone’ in order to try to root their text in the modern age, as if struggling to acknowledge that these things exist, and forcing the reader to believe that she is in tocuh. Snowman and his friend send emails to each other – sure, this is possible, yet this terminology seems very outdated in the age of Facebook and Twitter. It seems almost irrational that Atwood could predict the advancement of disgusting websites and genetically altering science, yet not the power of sites such as Myspace or Facebook, which had definitely begun to be influential by the time this novel was written. Also, essential products such as food are now in short supply, and so Atwood feels it is important to point out every time ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ butter, beer, cheese, whatever, is consumed by her characters in the compounds. However, the repetition of this idea or privileged authenticity can become a little dull, perhaps ‘done to death’ is the correct expression.

Atwood again explores the issues of childhood strains on the adult self, yet I’m not sure if it’s the anti-hero of Snowman or the more personal first person perspective of Elaine which makes Cat’s Eye the more engrossing story. Oryx and Crake felt more like a niggling thorn in my side to fill the gaps in the plot, like a Da Vinci Code ‘let’s get this over with’, rather than in Cat’s Eye, where I urgently needed to discover exactly what it was that has created Elaine, a much more rounded, realistic, and embraceable character.

P.S.

I promise to talk about Margaret Atwood next time...

The King's Speech

So I went to see The King’s Speech (Tom Hooper) yesterday (a certain chain cinema, £6.85 student ticket during the ‘Saver’ period, thank goodness it wasn’t Saturday prime time) and it was without question the best film I’ve seen since...Winter’s Bone.
The film follows Albert, Duke of York, the man who would be George VI (Colin Firth) as he attends speech therapy in order to overcome his stammer, so that he may carry out public speaking and not get bullied by his brother and father.  As I am what has been called an ‘anarchist’ by some people, or in my own words, generally just not really a pro-monarchy kind of guy, I could have easily have pretended to hate this film, not taken an interest, and have been delighted that the king could potentially make a fool out himself in front of thousands of people.
But, as sickening as it sounds, both Firth’s performance, as well as that of Geoffrey Rush playing the therapist, Lionel Logue, genuinely evokes your sympathy the Duke’s struggles. I found it generally did this by revealing the coldness in relationships within the royal family itself – George V has no patience with his poor son’s incapacity, and his brother mockingly calls him ‘B-B-B-Bertie’ (George VI’s real name was Albert – I didn’t realise they chose names for kings like they do with the pope, just whatever sounds good).  Bertie finds more comfort with Logue, who takes him down a peg, insisting on calling each other by their first names, rather than ‘Albert Frederick Arthur George’ which the Duke starts out as preferring. Yet their relationship develops, explicitly and hilariously portrayed as Logue invites Bertie to engage with throat and mouth exercises, such as tongue twisters, shouting vowel sounds through open windows, and wobbling his cheeks around as one would do to make a baby laugh. There is no better way of describing it! Although comical, watching a member of the ultra privileged free himself from the shadow of his judgemental family is very rewarding.  
As I have previously said in earlier posts, I enjoy films without the need for over-the-top special effects, focusing on just a few important characters. The first scene with Bertie and Logue interacting is a perfect example of why I find this so engaging – fast, witty dialogue, that could make you laugh and cry, immediately revealing both the Duke’s apparent stubbornness and his therapist’s unorthodox calm determination. I also enjoyed the camera angles used within the sessions between the two men – simply following them as they sit down rather than keeping it as a wide shot was so simple yet flowing and harmonious. It emphasises their growing fondness with each other and the Duke’s increased willingness to open up his private life to a common man, even in his dark and dingy study. Contrast this to a view inside Buckingham Palace (I believe) shown directly from above, the ornate decorations adorning the walls and ceiling enclosing the lens like the frame of a painting. It highlights the film’s outlook on royal life – beautiful in the exterior but ultimately harsh and dissatisfying.
Once again I have waffled on, and not even mentioned Helena Bonham Carter, who delivers as superbly, even in a supporting role, showing a personal and caring side to royal relationships. It should also be said that this was made with the British Film Council – another example of a fantastic British film, low key, brilliantly convincing acting, and an original storyline. How could this institution even be considered for abolition as it is by the coalition government? Outrageous.
 The first and final scenes are some of the best I have seen. The opening is true buttock clenching and knuckle whitening awkwardness as Firth captures the true fear of the Duke as he prepares to make a speech. The final draws all the best parts together – what isn’t funny yet sincerely moving about Geoffrey Rush mouthing the F word and waltzing to silent music to calm to new King as he braves all and delivers his wartime speech over the wireless?

Amazing.

Independent cinema

It seems my book disucssion is thin on the ground, but talking about Winter's Bone got me thinking about independent cinema and how amazing and valuable they are.

I saw Winter's Bone at the Pheonix Cinema in Leicester, which although I admit doesnt have the most comfortable seats in the world, shows a larger variety of films than the local Odeon or 'Cinema de Lux'. Pheonix offers cheap prices (was it about £2.50 for a student ticket? Why arnt they all like that?) as well as showing films which arnt just throwaway Hollywood junk, allowing access to independent or foriegn films.

Similarly, I have visited the tiny cinema in Keswick, Cumbria, which even has usherettes before the main feature to dish out food. Just like the old days. And is real cheap as well.

I wish all cinemas were like this!!!!!!!!!!

Best/Worst Film

Okay so the first proper post. I thought I'd start with films - these may not actually the 'best' or 'worst' film I have seen this year, but I am explaining my thoughts on these productions which either surpassed my expectations or I thought were a severe let down, as is the case here.

Best Film - Winter's Bone (Debra Granik)

As may become apparent, I am a bit of a fan of lower key films with just a few characters, without loads of computer-generated effects to carry the story along. Hence my love of this film, focusing on 17 year old Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), her family, and the few families in her community. It is set, as the title suggests, in a winter in the Ozark mountains in the central United States, and focuses on Ree's search for her father who has put the family home up as a bail bond - that is, if he doesn't show up for court, the house can be repossessed and the family made homeless. She must unravel the mystery of his disappearance by negotiating with her reclusive and dangerous neighbours.
Without giving too much more away, I was engrossed not only with the plot, but with the landscape. This is not the America of Hollywood or New York – it is grey, bleak, and oppressive. The oppressiveness emphasises the poverty in which the families live, in makeshift shacks, cabins and caravans. With a sick mother and absent father, Ree must navigate this landscape and provide for her younger brother and sister, teaching them to shoot and skin squirrels for food, for example.
As well as the engrossing story, this example demonstrates the highlight of this film – a young female lead as de facto head of the family, shown to act out roles traditionally left for men to perform. Ree’s strength is carried through Lawrence’s performance. To say she often speaks drolly is not insinuate boredom, but highlights beautifully the tragic hardships of her poverty stricken life, deflating the dreams an adolescent should be full of. Her lifestyle takes a physical toll on her. On top of this (and this is no insult to Lawrence in any way) by casting a relatively unknown actress, one who is not paper thin and classically beautiful, Debra Granik has ensured authenticity, as well as suggesting women can easily handle roles not conventionally ascribed to them without simply being an object for male desire.

Worst Film – Robin Hood (Ridley Scott)

Now to the film with which I was severely disappointed. I have always enjoyed a good Robin Hood adaption, such as Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner, despite the American accent. But what happened here? Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are two similar historical epics directed by Scott which, although clearly taking historical liberties, were visually very impressive and without too many clichés (let’s forget about Orlando Bloom, ahem). I am afraid to say that almost every scene in this film made me wince with what I saw as a gaping plot hole or blatant discrepancies necessary for the plot to develop.
For example, Robin takes the identity of Robert Loxley, a member of the king’s guard, fooling both noblemen who would surely be intimate with the king’s right hand men, and also – his own townspeople! Sure, the man is meant to have been away for 10 years but you would most surely recognise their own lord. Maybe the real Loxley didn’t ride his horse around town as much as Robin does – but that would be a huge change of character wouldn’t it? Also, Robin and his men are deserters from the army of the king, hoping to gain as much money as possible from stealing arms and armour. So why care so much to return Loxley’s sword to his father? He could make a fine profit from that.
Once home, Robin manages to also fool the whole of the royal court. Has not a single one of these people ever associated with the king’s closest knights before? Anyway, enough of these rhetorical questions.
One thing I was impressed with was that if Scott did use CGI to create the horsemen galloping to the coast to defend against the French, then it was most convincing. I am aware that Scott did use hundreds of extras to represent the Roman army in Gladiator, and so am hoping that he has done the same again here.
But this is not the case for the French invasion fleet, apparently sent all the way across the Channel in small rectangular boats, their shape suggesting they are flat bottomed. The effects team should have spent a few minutes at least to realistically show a few ships on the horizon to give some hint on how these hundreds of men had crossed the sea. Then the ramps go down on the craft and the men pour out onto the beach under a hail of missiles – not so much a nod to Saving Private Ryan, but a direct rip off. It’s okay though, because the day is saved by the wild children riding on ponies – who have previously been nothing but hostile to the film’s heroes. By having them led by Cate Blanchett’s Marion (she can do so much better) Scott reinforces a motherly role, suggesting that taming these feral boys is the only task she is capable of.
I feel I should stop there because I would have to sit through the DVD to recall all the other anachronisms, which I really don’t want to do. Maybe Scott is waiting for the inevitable sequel to develop the rest of his characters instead of inexplicably happily following Robin’s meandering lead.
Oh, Russell Crowe can NOT do a Midlands accent either. Or Scottish. Or Irish. But he has a stab at all of them.

Here are some interesting quotes...

Art is either plagiarism or revolution. Paul Gauguin

A film is a petrified fountain of thought. Jean Cocteau

An author ought to write for the youth of his own generation, the critics of the next, and the schoolmaster of ever afterwards. F. Scott Fitzgerald

First Post

Hello,

My name is Jonny Kemp, and I have decided to set up this Blog so I can write my own views and reviews of people, events, things...but mainly books and film (and maybe occasionally music). However, I will refrain from turning this into a subjective rant that will bore everyone to tears - if you want to comment or argue with me, please do so! It would be great to turn it into a discussion with lots of people contributing their views. You may discover fantastic films, actors, directors, authors, books, everything, that you never knew existed.

So please, have a read!

Thanks a lot

Jonny