NOTE: I'm changing my perfect score to 10 rather than five, as it allows me more flexibility in my scoring.
When Marvel Studios made Captain America: The First Avenger a few years ago, they did a rather curious thing: they launched a film franchise using a story format they could not possibly hope to repeat in future installments. They set that film during World War II, drawing on period films like Raiders of the Lost Ark for narrative inspiration. They even hired Joe Johnston, who had previously directed a period comic-book film in The Rocketeer, to infuse the film with that old-fashioned sensibility. Then, they ended the film in the present day, thus ensuring that any future films would not be able to draw on that particular narrative well except perhaps for the odd flashback. Then, of course, Cap appeared in the global box-office phenomenon The Avengers, and there was simply no turning back.
For the sequel to The First Avenger, therefore, Marvel had to do something completely different, and with the new film Captain America: The Winter Soldier, they have not only done that, but they've given audiences arguably their some of their finest work yet, even when compared to films as well-loved as The Avengers and the first Iron Man. Brothers Anthony and Joe Russo take over the director's reins from Joe Johnston this time around.
Even though The First Avenger screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely return for scripting duties, what they've turned in here manages to both be faithful to Marvel canon and yet a huge departure in tone not just from the first movie but from every other Marvel movie that's come before it.
Two years after the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) works as an operative of the Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement Logistics Division, or S.H.I.E.L.D. for short. His first mission in the film has him sneaking aboard a hijacked S.H.I.E.L.D. cargo ship to rescue the hostages from the dastardly Algerian pirate Batroc (Georges St. Pierre) and his crew together with fellow operatives Natasha Romanov, a.k.a. the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Brock Rumlow (Frank Grillo). It turns, out, however, that while Cap's mission was to rescue the hostages, apparently the Black Widow was on a slightly different errand for Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who, when confronted by Cap, reveals S.H.I.E.L.D.'s grand plan: they intend to launch three fully-armed Helicarriers into the sky, in a perpetual, sub-orbital patrol. The idea is to have S.H.I.E.L.D.'s guns trained on all potential threats at all times, a preemptive mindset with which Cap vehemently disagrees. As it turns out, Fury has his own misgivings, which he expresses to his superior, Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford).
Things then take a turn for the deadly as a mysterious assassin named the Winter Soldier shows up, and it's up to Cap and his allies, including the Black Widow and veterans' counselor Sam Wilson a.k.a. the Falcon (Anthony Mackie) to stop him and the sinister forces behind him.
This movie has often been compared to political thrillers from the 1970s not only by critics but by the directors themselves, who cite Three Days of the Condor, which starred Redford himself, as a direct inspiration. Personally, I've never seen any of those movies, though I saw a number of similarities between this film and political thrillers of more recent vintage, specifically the Bourne movies of Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass. Like those films, this one tackles the evils of the military industrial complex, and wears its anti-establishment colors on its red, white and blue sleeves. The good news for me is that I am a huge fan of the first three Bourne films (the ones that actually featured the character of Jason Bourne), and this film has actually captured much of what was great about those films as far as political commentary goes.
Also, like the Bourne series of films, this film has generous helpings of bone-crushing action sequences, easily on par with anything those films had to offer and head and shoulders above anything that's been seen in a superhero movie to date. This was extremely gratifying to see onscreen because I have been longing for some proper fight choreography in a superhero movie since Bryan Singer and his writers decided that Wolverine was completely ignorant in martial arts when they made the X-Men movies. It always bothered me that an ordinary spy/assassin like Jason Bourne had much more impressive fighting skills than a killing machine like Wolverine and comic-book martial arts experts like Batman and Daredevil.
This particular film answers that particular gripe of mine: movie-Captain America makes movie-Batman (yes, the one played by Christian Bale) look like he's fighting underwater, movie-Daredevil look like he's doing an interpretative dance, and movie-Wolverine look like a complete idiot. Heck, THIS Cap could probably take down all three of them at the same time, considering what he did to a dozen guys in an elevator. Oh, and yes, I am fairly convinced that this Cap could also kick Jason Bourne's ass.
There's much more to the film than chop-sockey scenes, though. Evans is no Robert Downey, Jr., but he really has made the role of Steve Rogers his own through some truly earnest acting which is, as it was in the first film, premised on the fact that at heart, under all the muscle and fighting skills, Steve Rogers is still a 95-pound weakling who just wants to do the right thing. This movie is also notable for being Johansson's breakthrough in terms of her Black Widow character, who appeared rather expansively in The Avengers but whose character was not explored very much. The good news is that Johansson is very much up to the challenge; she finally expands her character beyond diminutive badass to someone who is actually vulnerable, especially when she finds out that she did not necessarily enjoy the trust of someone important to her. Similarly, Jackson's Nick Fury gets to do more than glower and spout out one-liners; much of the plot hinges on the things he does or that happen to him. Perhaps one drawback to this is that for the first time since he sauntered onto the post-credits scene in Iron Man, Jackson really is starting to look a bit old for the role. Still, this is one for which he will be remembered well; I exhort eagle-eyed fans to catch the "Pulp Fiction" reference in the film.
The new additions to the cast also help Marvel raise their game; Redford is a perfect casting choice as Pierce, which is about all I can say without spoiling anything. He isn't slumming it or passing on through for a paycheck; he genuinely sinks his teeth into this material and it is utterly gratifying to watch, much like watching Anthony Hopkins bellow his lines as Odin was in the first Thor movie. Ditto for Anthony Mackie, who reportedly pursued the role of Sam Wilson quite aggressively. He looks like he's having an absolute blast as the character, especially when he straps on the character's signature wings, which get a truly awesome cinematic touch-up.
There have been gripes about the allegedly generic finale with copious explosions and computer-generated mayhem, but while it's admittedly easy for the fanboy in me to forgive such climaxes, I think it's also worth pointing out that there was some narrative precedent for the eventual climax; the foundation for what happened in the end was laid fairly early in the script. Not only that, but we would have been robbed of some incredible flying sequences featuring the Falcon had the end not played out as it did. Finally, by the time the climax rolled around, the filmmakers had already given the audience plenty of incredibly gritty, somewhat more grounded action sequences, like the extended gun battle in the streets of Washington D.C. which has drawn comparisons to the nigh-iconic shootout in Michael Mann's Heat.
I had actually thought that Marvel Studios would be taking it easy this year, content to let their "lesser" properties make some decent coin while preparing to take no prisoners next year with The Avengers: Age of Ultron. With this film, however, easily the best of "Phase 2" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel had made it clear that they have no intention of taking a break from giving their fans some of the very best movies based on these characters they could possibly hope to see.
8.8/10
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Girl Power in the Most Unexpected Place: A Review of 300: Rise of an Empire
From a box-office perspective, Zack Snyder's 2007 film 300 was a remarkable achievement; it took a story known only to history buffs and specialty comic book geeks and turned it into a nearly $500 million grossing worldwide phenomenon. It was a cultural milestone of sorts, especially considering it opened up quite a bit of discussion on what really happened back then. Iranian-Americans decried the way it depicted the Persian empire, and a lot of other people decried the underlying sexism, homophobia, videogame-inspired violence, borderline endorsement of fascism and, many other things besides. For better or worse, though, there is no denying that this film made waves when it came out.
One wonders, therefore why it took so long for the sequel, which, as I understand it, was greenlit quite sometime ago, to come out. Considering the relatively cheap price tag of the first one and the return on investment, a sequel (or parallel piece, as this one turns out to be) was a sound business decision. The CGI could be done on the cheap because the main goal is to be stylized, not realistic, and there was absolutely no need for popular stars.
In that respect, 300: Rise of An Empire, helmed by first-time feature director Noam Murro (with Snyder writing and producing this time), very much follows the formula of the first film. The first film basically dramatized (read: butchered) the historical battle of Thermopylae, while this film similarly "remixes" historical events, stringing together the battle of Marathon, which sets the stage for the events that take place in the film and, indeed, even the first film, and the battle of Salamis. The first film took then little-known Scottish actor Gerard Butler and made him a household name as the Spartan warrior-king Leonidas, while this one has little-known Australian actor Sullivan Stapleton playing the lead character, the Athenian naval commander Themistokles. All of this takes place against a bronzed, computer-generated backdrop of the ancient kingdoms of Greece.
The difference between the two movies, however, is this film's redeeming quality, and it is in the adversaries that the two fictionalized Greeks face, almost simultaneously, albeit on different battlefields. This place takes place primarily on the Aegean Sea, or at least a computer-generated version of it.
In the first film, King Leonidas squared off against the "god king" Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) who returns in this film. The difference, though, is that he is revealed as weak and incapable and that his whole "god-king" image is basically hype. In fact, this film reveals the force actually driving him: Artemisia (Eva Green), the most trusted general of Xerxes' late father Darius. In fact, it is revealed that it was actually Artemisia who, upon instigating Xerxes' transformation from awkward man-child to oversized golden idol, actually goaded him into declaring war on all of Greece and Athens especially because she has an ax to grind with the Greeks that is revealed early on in the film. It is she whom Themistokles must defeat, which is no easy task.
Now, I'm willing to wager that Eva Green's Artemisia is a far cry from whoever her historical counterpart actually was. I'm certain she didn't dress in bondage gear with spikes protruding from her back, or fight with two swords using what looks like Filipino martial arts or even look like Eva Green. Truth be told, I couldn't really care less about any of that because I found Green to be absolutely amazing. Sullivan Stapleton delivered a largely anonymous performance as Themistokles, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if his resume consisted mostly direct-to-video fodder after this film, but Green's screen presence as Artemisia was so overpowering that she was to this film what Butler, with his throaty bellowing of "SPARTA!" was to the first one. I'd seen her before in Casino Royale and, before that in Kingdom of Heaven, but to my mind this is the performance for which she will really be remembered. I'm only sorry that the local distributor, to secure a milder rating from the classification board, saw fit to chop out some of her, um, assets in a scene in which Artemisia seduces Themistokles. Still, inner pervert aside, Green made this film work for me.
Without her, the movie is largely a retread of the racist, right-wing orgy of violence that the first one was, only this time with a leading man absolutely devoid of charisma. The battle sequences, though sometimes muddled, are nonetheless impressively staged, but there really isn't that much that makes this movie stand out, especially considering how often the slow-down/ramp-up action of 300 has been copied in the seven years that have passed between these two films.
Green really makes the difference here; this film certainly isn't the celebration of female empowerment that films like Frozen or The Hunger Games were, but to my mind she turns in a performance that deserves to be remembered as one of the best ever from a woman starring in an action movie.
3/5 (Two of which belong to Green)
One wonders, therefore why it took so long for the sequel, which, as I understand it, was greenlit quite sometime ago, to come out. Considering the relatively cheap price tag of the first one and the return on investment, a sequel (or parallel piece, as this one turns out to be) was a sound business decision. The CGI could be done on the cheap because the main goal is to be stylized, not realistic, and there was absolutely no need for popular stars.
In that respect, 300: Rise of An Empire, helmed by first-time feature director Noam Murro (with Snyder writing and producing this time), very much follows the formula of the first film. The first film basically dramatized (read: butchered) the historical battle of Thermopylae, while this film similarly "remixes" historical events, stringing together the battle of Marathon, which sets the stage for the events that take place in the film and, indeed, even the first film, and the battle of Salamis. The first film took then little-known Scottish actor Gerard Butler and made him a household name as the Spartan warrior-king Leonidas, while this one has little-known Australian actor Sullivan Stapleton playing the lead character, the Athenian naval commander Themistokles. All of this takes place against a bronzed, computer-generated backdrop of the ancient kingdoms of Greece.
The difference between the two movies, however, is this film's redeeming quality, and it is in the adversaries that the two fictionalized Greeks face, almost simultaneously, albeit on different battlefields. This place takes place primarily on the Aegean Sea, or at least a computer-generated version of it.
In the first film, King Leonidas squared off against the "god king" Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) who returns in this film. The difference, though, is that he is revealed as weak and incapable and that his whole "god-king" image is basically hype. In fact, this film reveals the force actually driving him: Artemisia (Eva Green), the most trusted general of Xerxes' late father Darius. In fact, it is revealed that it was actually Artemisia who, upon instigating Xerxes' transformation from awkward man-child to oversized golden idol, actually goaded him into declaring war on all of Greece and Athens especially because she has an ax to grind with the Greeks that is revealed early on in the film. It is she whom Themistokles must defeat, which is no easy task.
Now, I'm willing to wager that Eva Green's Artemisia is a far cry from whoever her historical counterpart actually was. I'm certain she didn't dress in bondage gear with spikes protruding from her back, or fight with two swords using what looks like Filipino martial arts or even look like Eva Green. Truth be told, I couldn't really care less about any of that because I found Green to be absolutely amazing. Sullivan Stapleton delivered a largely anonymous performance as Themistokles, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if his resume consisted mostly direct-to-video fodder after this film, but Green's screen presence as Artemisia was so overpowering that she was to this film what Butler, with his throaty bellowing of "SPARTA!" was to the first one. I'd seen her before in Casino Royale and, before that in Kingdom of Heaven, but to my mind this is the performance for which she will really be remembered. I'm only sorry that the local distributor, to secure a milder rating from the classification board, saw fit to chop out some of her, um, assets in a scene in which Artemisia seduces Themistokles. Still, inner pervert aside, Green made this film work for me.
Without her, the movie is largely a retread of the racist, right-wing orgy of violence that the first one was, only this time with a leading man absolutely devoid of charisma. The battle sequences, though sometimes muddled, are nonetheless impressively staged, but there really isn't that much that makes this movie stand out, especially considering how often the slow-down/ramp-up action of 300 has been copied in the seven years that have passed between these two films.
Green really makes the difference here; this film certainly isn't the celebration of female empowerment that films like Frozen or The Hunger Games were, but to my mind she turns in a performance that deserves to be remembered as one of the best ever from a woman starring in an action movie.
3/5 (Two of which belong to Green)
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Light and Fluffy: A Review of Mr. Peabody and Sherman
Decades ago, the cartoons of Jay Ward, like Rocky and Bullwinkle, Dudley Do Right and George of the Jungle entertained a whole generation of television viewers, and while I have to admit I wasn't part of that generation, I was able to catch one or two of the film adaptations of these cartoons that have been coming out since the late 1990s. In particular, I watched George of the Jungle, which did nothing for me, and more recently, the animated film Mr. Peabody and Sherman, directed by Rob Minkoff (The Lion King).
The timing for my watching this film couldn't have been better; after watching the magnificently crafted but emotionally draining 12 Years A Slave, a considerably lighter movie was quite welcome.
Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is a genius of a dog who has adopted a human boy named Sherman (Max Charles) and actually gives his son lessons by traveling back in time using a device Peabody has invented called the WABAC (which is pronounced "way back"). When Sherman goes to school, however, and his knowledge gained from time-traveling has him run afoul of "popular girl" Penny (Ariel Winter) which results in her bullying him, which in turn results in him fighting back by biting her, things get distinctly uncomfortable for the unconventional father-son duo as child services, represented by the hulking, unpleasant Mrs. Grunion (Allison Janney) scrutinizes the propriety of having a dog adopt a boy. To fix things, Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over, and leaves the two children in Sherman's room to resolve their differences while he tries to charm Penny's parents. Sherman, wanting to prove to Penny that he wasn't lying about the things he knows, shows her the WABAC, and suffice it to say, chaos ensues.
I never watched the original cartoon, so if there were any references or in-jokes that only fans of that show would get they sailed right over my head. Still, there were enough puns and broad, visual gags for me and my family to appreciate the movie, flaws and all. While I wouldn't rank this film with Dreamworks Animation's best work like the first Shrek, Kung Fu Panda or How to Train Your Dragon, it does have that some of that sense of fun that made those films memorable. It was fitting that Minkoff, who also directed Stuart Little, which was about humans adopting a mouse as their son, helmed this film, as it represents a bit of a turnabout on the concept of interspecies adoption.
The appearance of comedic versions of notable historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci (Stanley Tucci) and King Agamemnon (Patrick Warburton) added to the enjoyment and duly exploited the film's time-traveling theme. The film's absurd premise also makes it easy to ignore some of the verbose explanation of the fake science, though it grated on me every now and then when it seemed like they were trying to make it all sound even remotely believable.
The thing about movies that don't really invest a lot in story or characterization is that they run out of gas a lot earlier than they otherwise would, as this film does with a third-act "I am Spartacus" scene (which actually features a pretty funny cameo), but I'd already had enough fun by then to endure the last-act cliches.
This film makes for a pleasant enough afternoon with the kids, and truth be told, while to my mind it doesn't really scream for a sequel, perhaps a revival of the original TV show using CGI is in order now. After all, there are thousands of years of human history that Mr. Peabody and Sherman can explore.
3.5/5
The timing for my watching this film couldn't have been better; after watching the magnificently crafted but emotionally draining 12 Years A Slave, a considerably lighter movie was quite welcome.
Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is a genius of a dog who has adopted a human boy named Sherman (Max Charles) and actually gives his son lessons by traveling back in time using a device Peabody has invented called the WABAC (which is pronounced "way back"). When Sherman goes to school, however, and his knowledge gained from time-traveling has him run afoul of "popular girl" Penny (Ariel Winter) which results in her bullying him, which in turn results in him fighting back by biting her, things get distinctly uncomfortable for the unconventional father-son duo as child services, represented by the hulking, unpleasant Mrs. Grunion (Allison Janney) scrutinizes the propriety of having a dog adopt a boy. To fix things, Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over, and leaves the two children in Sherman's room to resolve their differences while he tries to charm Penny's parents. Sherman, wanting to prove to Penny that he wasn't lying about the things he knows, shows her the WABAC, and suffice it to say, chaos ensues.
I never watched the original cartoon, so if there were any references or in-jokes that only fans of that show would get they sailed right over my head. Still, there were enough puns and broad, visual gags for me and my family to appreciate the movie, flaws and all. While I wouldn't rank this film with Dreamworks Animation's best work like the first Shrek, Kung Fu Panda or How to Train Your Dragon, it does have that some of that sense of fun that made those films memorable. It was fitting that Minkoff, who also directed Stuart Little, which was about humans adopting a mouse as their son, helmed this film, as it represents a bit of a turnabout on the concept of interspecies adoption.
The appearance of comedic versions of notable historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci (Stanley Tucci) and King Agamemnon (Patrick Warburton) added to the enjoyment and duly exploited the film's time-traveling theme. The film's absurd premise also makes it easy to ignore some of the verbose explanation of the fake science, though it grated on me every now and then when it seemed like they were trying to make it all sound even remotely believable.
The thing about movies that don't really invest a lot in story or characterization is that they run out of gas a lot earlier than they otherwise would, as this film does with a third-act "I am Spartacus" scene (which actually features a pretty funny cameo), but I'd already had enough fun by then to endure the last-act cliches.
This film makes for a pleasant enough afternoon with the kids, and truth be told, while to my mind it doesn't really scream for a sequel, perhaps a revival of the original TV show using CGI is in order now. After all, there are thousands of years of human history that Mr. Peabody and Sherman can explore.
3.5/5
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Why Filipinos Should Watch 12 Years a Slave
Last year, the exciting, expertly-crafted spy thriller Argo walked away with the Academy Award for Best Picture. While personally I liked that movie a lot and said so in my review of the film, it still had distinct and conspicuous "Hollywood" touches such as a contrived climactic chase and a wild-eyed villain.
It is, perhaps a fitting change of pace that this year the Oscar for Best Picture went to a film that was decidedly different in tone, Steve McQueen's heart-wrenching drama. 12 Years a Slave.
The film depicts the harrowing experience of Solomon Northup (played here by Chiwetel Ejiofor) a violin player living in New York City in 1841 with his beautiful wife and two children, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Northup, the film takes pains to emphasize, was born an raised a free man, so when he is kidnapped and sold into slavery the shock goes well beyond the physical pain he endures when he is beaten and whipped to admit that he is a slave. While in transit on a boat that will take him from Washington to his new life as a slave, he learns a thing or two about how to survive from Clemens Ray, a fellow slave who tells him to keep his head down. Northup, renamed Platt, is first sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) a relatively benevolent, if ultimately impotent master. However, when Northup runs afoul of a cruel overseer (an irritating Paul Dano) Ford is forced to let him go, and as payment for a debt he cedes Northup to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) a cotton plantation owner who is not only malevolent but who may actually be insane as well, given that apart from working his slaves to the bone, he actually wakes them up in the dead of the night to dance like puppets in his dining room. Epps requires that his slaves pick at least two hundred pounds of cotton a day or they suffer beatings. The most productive worker on Epps plantation is the gangly Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o, who won an Oscar for her performance), who picks an average of five hundred pounds of cotton daily, over twice what anyone else picks, and she happens to be the apple of Epps' eye, much to the irritation of his wife (Sarah Paulson), who is exceedingly cruel to the poor Patsey. Throughout his ordeal, Solomon never loses hope that he may again one day be a free man, though that hope seems exceedingly elusive as the years drag on.
Of all the films I saw that were released in 2013, this one made me the most uncomfortable, and in that respect I think it was completely successful at what it set out to do. I wouldn't be surprised if, like any Hollywood story, liberties were taken with Northup's experience, but the utter desolation of a man taken away from a comfortable life and made to live like an animal for over a decade is captured with painful perfection by director McQueen and his star Ejiofor, who constantly wears the expression on his face that says he knows deep in his heart that he doesn't belong where he is. It's hard for me to appreciate details like the craft that went into the filmmaking when all I could feel throughout the movie was my stomach churning at the stark human cruelty, and in that sense I think this was McQueen's ultimate achievement; he put me in that moment.
For me, though, no matter how uncomfortable and difficult the movie as to watch, I could not help but appreciate screenwriter John Ridley's adaptation of the book on which the movie was based. I was mesmerized by the wonderfully civilized English employed and enjoyed it in much the same way I savored the late 19th century English spoken by the characters in the Coen brother's 2010 take on the novel True Grit, or the early 19th century English spoken by the characters in Ang Lee's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. People don't talk like that anymore, I realized, and it may not always be the most practical way to speak, but to me there was something truly elegant about the way English was spoken back then. Perhaps the success of this movie could go some way towards helping restore such wonderful nuance to the English language.
Given the brutal subject matter and the fact that, even on a good day, movies about black people are never particularly popular here in the Philippines unless that black person happens to be Will Smith, Wesley Snipes or some other comedy or action superstar, this movie will probably be gone from our theaters sooner than most films, but to my mind it is one that is relevant to our experience, not just historically but even now.
The evil of human trafficking, after all, is far from merely a thing of the past, and Filipinos are among the most egregiously victimized, especially given the high rate of poverty in our country. Watching the movie, I recalled the short video that accompanied the Philippine national anthem that played before the movie began which depicted, among other things, Filipinos working overseas, and there and then I saw the unintended parallels. Northup was lured to his fate by the promise of work and a fairly handsome compensation, if only for a brief moment, only for things to go horribly awry. Even today, Filipinos leave their country on a regular basis in search of better opportunities abroad, only to arrive at their destination and find that what they actually end up doing is far from what they expected; skilled workers end up doing manual labor and entertainers end up as prostitutes, for example. Northup was enticed by an opportunity for some extra money, while today's overseas workers act out of desperation, and even with the phalanx of domestic and international laws enacted to protect them, end up working in sub-human conditions. Northup was tricked and ultimately victimized by evil men, while overseas workers are victimized by evil men taking advantage of their poverty, a systemic evil with deep roots.
The film reminds audiences that once upon a time, it was legal to own human beings and to treat them like chattel, and that it was only through the efforts of decent and upright people that such practices were ultimately outlawed. One hopes that the collective efforts of similarly principled people can one day work to free all of humanity from the poverty that enslaves them as well.
5/5
It is, perhaps a fitting change of pace that this year the Oscar for Best Picture went to a film that was decidedly different in tone, Steve McQueen's heart-wrenching drama. 12 Years a Slave.
The film depicts the harrowing experience of Solomon Northup (played here by Chiwetel Ejiofor) a violin player living in New York City in 1841 with his beautiful wife and two children, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Northup, the film takes pains to emphasize, was born an raised a free man, so when he is kidnapped and sold into slavery the shock goes well beyond the physical pain he endures when he is beaten and whipped to admit that he is a slave. While in transit on a boat that will take him from Washington to his new life as a slave, he learns a thing or two about how to survive from Clemens Ray, a fellow slave who tells him to keep his head down. Northup, renamed Platt, is first sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) a relatively benevolent, if ultimately impotent master. However, when Northup runs afoul of a cruel overseer (an irritating Paul Dano) Ford is forced to let him go, and as payment for a debt he cedes Northup to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) a cotton plantation owner who is not only malevolent but who may actually be insane as well, given that apart from working his slaves to the bone, he actually wakes them up in the dead of the night to dance like puppets in his dining room. Epps requires that his slaves pick at least two hundred pounds of cotton a day or they suffer beatings. The most productive worker on Epps plantation is the gangly Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o, who won an Oscar for her performance), who picks an average of five hundred pounds of cotton daily, over twice what anyone else picks, and she happens to be the apple of Epps' eye, much to the irritation of his wife (Sarah Paulson), who is exceedingly cruel to the poor Patsey. Throughout his ordeal, Solomon never loses hope that he may again one day be a free man, though that hope seems exceedingly elusive as the years drag on.
Of all the films I saw that were released in 2013, this one made me the most uncomfortable, and in that respect I think it was completely successful at what it set out to do. I wouldn't be surprised if, like any Hollywood story, liberties were taken with Northup's experience, but the utter desolation of a man taken away from a comfortable life and made to live like an animal for over a decade is captured with painful perfection by director McQueen and his star Ejiofor, who constantly wears the expression on his face that says he knows deep in his heart that he doesn't belong where he is. It's hard for me to appreciate details like the craft that went into the filmmaking when all I could feel throughout the movie was my stomach churning at the stark human cruelty, and in that sense I think this was McQueen's ultimate achievement; he put me in that moment.
For me, though, no matter how uncomfortable and difficult the movie as to watch, I could not help but appreciate screenwriter John Ridley's adaptation of the book on which the movie was based. I was mesmerized by the wonderfully civilized English employed and enjoyed it in much the same way I savored the late 19th century English spoken by the characters in the Coen brother's 2010 take on the novel True Grit, or the early 19th century English spoken by the characters in Ang Lee's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. People don't talk like that anymore, I realized, and it may not always be the most practical way to speak, but to me there was something truly elegant about the way English was spoken back then. Perhaps the success of this movie could go some way towards helping restore such wonderful nuance to the English language.
Given the brutal subject matter and the fact that, even on a good day, movies about black people are never particularly popular here in the Philippines unless that black person happens to be Will Smith, Wesley Snipes or some other comedy or action superstar, this movie will probably be gone from our theaters sooner than most films, but to my mind it is one that is relevant to our experience, not just historically but even now.
The evil of human trafficking, after all, is far from merely a thing of the past, and Filipinos are among the most egregiously victimized, especially given the high rate of poverty in our country. Watching the movie, I recalled the short video that accompanied the Philippine national anthem that played before the movie began which depicted, among other things, Filipinos working overseas, and there and then I saw the unintended parallels. Northup was lured to his fate by the promise of work and a fairly handsome compensation, if only for a brief moment, only for things to go horribly awry. Even today, Filipinos leave their country on a regular basis in search of better opportunities abroad, only to arrive at their destination and find that what they actually end up doing is far from what they expected; skilled workers end up doing manual labor and entertainers end up as prostitutes, for example. Northup was enticed by an opportunity for some extra money, while today's overseas workers act out of desperation, and even with the phalanx of domestic and international laws enacted to protect them, end up working in sub-human conditions. Northup was tricked and ultimately victimized by evil men, while overseas workers are victimized by evil men taking advantage of their poverty, a systemic evil with deep roots.
The film reminds audiences that once upon a time, it was legal to own human beings and to treat them like chattel, and that it was only through the efforts of decent and upright people that such practices were ultimately outlawed. One hopes that the collective efforts of similarly principled people can one day work to free all of humanity from the poverty that enslaves them as well.
5/5
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
How "Frozen" May Have Just Given Marvel a Huge Boost
When the Walt Disney Company acquired Marvel Entertainment nearly five years ago, one of the first questions several fans started asking themselves was which of their over 5,000 properties would get adapted into an animated feature film, particularly by Pixar Studios, in view of their original take on superheroes with the modern classic The Incredibles. It was speculated that the characters less likely to sell tickets in a live-action movie would be the better candidates, like the lesser-known Doctor Strange.
When the announcement finally came that a Marvel property would get the animated treatment, I was personally disappointed on two counts, the first being that the property, Big Hero 6 was not only relatively obscure but relatively recent, and the second being that it was the mother studio, Walt Disney Animation, and not (at the time) the more prestigious Pixar that would be bringing the property to the big screen.
The choice of an obscure property, as opposed to something I would have wanted to see, made sense to me, although I still grumbled; after all, I would imagine Marvel's priority is still giving its properties the live-action treatment, such that if a particular character or team of characters has an even remotely decent chance of striking gold at the box office, they would prefer to give it the Marvel studio treatment. After all, they're releasing a movie starring a talking raccoon later this year. Such, therefore, is their resolve to bring their library to the big screen.
The decision to have Disney Studios and not Pixar Studios handle the movie was slightly more irksome, though. To me, it felt at the time, like Disney was handing over what should have been a prized project (considering, especially, that the three Marvel movies that have been released since Disney acquired the company have grossed over THREE BILLION DOLLARS at the global box office), to its B-team. After all, these were the people responsible for forgettable fluff like Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. My stance on the matter softened late in 2012, though, when I was thoroughly impressed by Wreck-It-Ralph, Disney Studios' offering for that year, which I actually liked better than Pixar's Brave. I knew then that this new, John-Lasseter-era Disney Animation was capable of more than just musicals; this was a movie that spoke to nerds like me, and it made some pretty decent bank to boot. Not only that, but Pixar's star lost a little bit of its luster after Cars 2 was savaged by critics and snubbed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a first for any Pixar film since the Academy started giving out Oscars for Best Animated Feature. They sort of bounced back the next year with Brave, but it was no longer quite the same.
Still, I could not help but feel that the Marvel property was being handled by the less "illustrious" of the Disney-owned animation outfits.
Then, Frozen came out, and it was a whole new ballgame.
For the benefit of anyone living under a rock, Frozen, an animated film which I reviewed here, isn't just a movie; it's a pop-culture phenomenon, the likes of which are rather rare. Not even the fact that the movie has grossed a BILLION dollars worldwide can quite encapsulate its impact on the popular consciousness. The theme song, "Let It Go" has become an anthem for female empowerment and has been translated into a gazillion languages by now, including languages of countries that don't actually have snow. In my review, I noted that Disney Studios seemed to be following a strategy of alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys" but the truth is that a film does not make a billion dollars or reap that many awards simply by pandering to a specific demographic. Frozen is a movie for everyone, children and adults, audiences and critics, nearly all of whom have embraced it to a degree not seen in years. This is arguably Walt Disney Studios' most groundbreaking movie in years...and it didn't come from Pixar. The fact that Frozen won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature is even more notable for the fact that last year's Pixar offering, the prequel Monsters University, wasn't even nominated.
For the first time since 1995, when Toy Story outgrossed Pocahontas, and set the stage for Pixar Studios' utter domination of its counterparts at Walt Disney Animation Studios for years thereafter (a creative edge that, in fact, precipitated quite a bit of haggling in the mid-2000s when Pixar thought of taking their product elsewhere), the mother studio is now the "A" team.
And the very first film that Walt Disney Animation will release, post-Frozen is...Marvel's Big Hero 6.
Now they can put "from the studio that brought you Frozen" and "from the minds that gave you The Avengers," all on the same poster. Imagine that.
When the announcement finally came that a Marvel property would get the animated treatment, I was personally disappointed on two counts, the first being that the property, Big Hero 6 was not only relatively obscure but relatively recent, and the second being that it was the mother studio, Walt Disney Animation, and not (at the time) the more prestigious Pixar that would be bringing the property to the big screen.
The choice of an obscure property, as opposed to something I would have wanted to see, made sense to me, although I still grumbled; after all, I would imagine Marvel's priority is still giving its properties the live-action treatment, such that if a particular character or team of characters has an even remotely decent chance of striking gold at the box office, they would prefer to give it the Marvel studio treatment. After all, they're releasing a movie starring a talking raccoon later this year. Such, therefore, is their resolve to bring their library to the big screen.
The decision to have Disney Studios and not Pixar Studios handle the movie was slightly more irksome, though. To me, it felt at the time, like Disney was handing over what should have been a prized project (considering, especially, that the three Marvel movies that have been released since Disney acquired the company have grossed over THREE BILLION DOLLARS at the global box office), to its B-team. After all, these were the people responsible for forgettable fluff like Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. My stance on the matter softened late in 2012, though, when I was thoroughly impressed by Wreck-It-Ralph, Disney Studios' offering for that year, which I actually liked better than Pixar's Brave. I knew then that this new, John-Lasseter-era Disney Animation was capable of more than just musicals; this was a movie that spoke to nerds like me, and it made some pretty decent bank to boot. Not only that, but Pixar's star lost a little bit of its luster after Cars 2 was savaged by critics and snubbed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a first for any Pixar film since the Academy started giving out Oscars for Best Animated Feature. They sort of bounced back the next year with Brave, but it was no longer quite the same.
Still, I could not help but feel that the Marvel property was being handled by the less "illustrious" of the Disney-owned animation outfits.
Then, Frozen came out, and it was a whole new ballgame.
For the benefit of anyone living under a rock, Frozen, an animated film which I reviewed here, isn't just a movie; it's a pop-culture phenomenon, the likes of which are rather rare. Not even the fact that the movie has grossed a BILLION dollars worldwide can quite encapsulate its impact on the popular consciousness. The theme song, "Let It Go" has become an anthem for female empowerment and has been translated into a gazillion languages by now, including languages of countries that don't actually have snow. In my review, I noted that Disney Studios seemed to be following a strategy of alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys" but the truth is that a film does not make a billion dollars or reap that many awards simply by pandering to a specific demographic. Frozen is a movie for everyone, children and adults, audiences and critics, nearly all of whom have embraced it to a degree not seen in years. This is arguably Walt Disney Studios' most groundbreaking movie in years...and it didn't come from Pixar. The fact that Frozen won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature is even more notable for the fact that last year's Pixar offering, the prequel Monsters University, wasn't even nominated.
For the first time since 1995, when Toy Story outgrossed Pocahontas, and set the stage for Pixar Studios' utter domination of its counterparts at Walt Disney Animation Studios for years thereafter (a creative edge that, in fact, precipitated quite a bit of haggling in the mid-2000s when Pixar thought of taking their product elsewhere), the mother studio is now the "A" team.
And the very first film that Walt Disney Animation will release, post-Frozen is...Marvel's Big Hero 6.
Now they can put "from the studio that brought you Frozen" and "from the minds that gave you The Avengers," all on the same poster. Imagine that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)