Showing posts with label Ralph Fiennes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ralph Fiennes. Show all posts

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Hail, Caesar!



The latest film from the Coen Brothers 'Hail, Caesar!' depicts life in the Hollywood studios in the 1950s through the role of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) as the head of studio whose job it is to keep everything running smoothly.


The main problem he faces is keeping the Biblical epic ‘Hail, Caesar!’ on track after its star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped by a group of communist script writers (see ‘Trumbo’) known as ‘The Future’, who demand a $100,000 ransom in exchange for his safe return.


Then there’s DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson), an actress who becomes pregnant out of wedlock in the middle of her film and there's Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), a cowboy actor in Westerns being asked to take over a part in a more serious role, where he really can't cut it.


Meanwhile Mannix is being seduced by a possible new employer, who offers him more money and the chance to be home in time for dinner with his wife every evening. 

Writing about it now the plot sounds like it has promise, so I'm not sure what exactly went wrong because it really didn't seem to work. 'Hail, Caesar!' is a rare thing, a disappointing Coen Brothers film.


For a start there are too many actors and actresses fighting for screen time because there are additional roles for Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton (twice, playing twins), Channing Tatum, Frances McDormand and many others.

The film is part tribute and parody of Hollywood's Golden Age with its many references to the films of that era but it’s an unfocussed one, that will fall flat on most of his audience who do not really go back that far.


In a way it’s the sort of film that Woody Allen would make and that wouldn’t have been for me either. It was probably great fun to make, much less to watch.

Saturday, 22 March 2014

The Grand Budapest Hotel





The Grand Budapest Hotel opens with a young girl standing at a monument to a writer and reading a memoir penned by the ‘Author’. Presumably the same chap. This author (Tom Wilkinson) recounts the story of when his younger self (Jude Law) visit the Grand Budapest Hotel, which had fallen on hard times, and met its then owner Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). Zero then tells his own story of how he came to own it and why he is unwilling to close it down. I hope you’re following? This film has flashbacks with knobs on them.


It’s a film with an unusual approach to its story and it plays out a bit like a Dangermouse cartoon, heading off at tangent after tangent whilst within itself, somewhere, is the actual story.

Back in the 1930's a younger Zero (Tony Revolori), a mere immigrant boy, worked as a lobby boy under the hotel's flamboyant concierge, M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). This is in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a place that is teetering on the brink of war under the weight of some Nazi lookalike thugs.


Not that Gustave seems to notice. He is too busy as he wines, dines and beds a succession of rich, much older women who all love the hotel because of the exceptional personal service he gives. Sadly his latest conquest Madame D (Tilda Swinton) suddenly drops down dead. Yet in her will she leaves Gustav a priceless painting called ‘Boy with Apple’. Madame D's son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) doesn't take this well and Gustav finds himself framed for her murder.


So he steals the painting and legs it. He makes a deal with Zero, naming him as his heir if he helps him. Then when Gustave is arrested and imprisoned, Zero and his girlie (Saorsie Ronan) combine to free him and things just get steadily more madcap from there onwards. 


We get Gustave and Zero being pursued by a hit man (Willem Defoe) on skis down the full Winter Olympic experience including downhill run, bobsleigh track and ski jump.

Everything moves forward at breakneck speed in this film and if you’re not concentrating you’re going to miss something. Things are not even easy to follow if you do but even if you lose the plot, the film’s still full of weird and wonderful characters to enjoy. All of which are played by famous faces.

It’s all quite ridiculous and you feel at times that writer/director/producer Wes Anderson may just be simply having at laugh at our expense but I enjoyed it thoroughly nonetheless.

Friday, 2 January 2009

The Reader

It is 1958 in Germany and Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) discovers a fifteen-year-old schoolboy throwing up outside her home. She charitably cleans him up and helps him back home to his family.

The boy is Michael Berg (David Kross), he turns out to have scarlet fever, and is bedridden for three months. Once he is well again, he returns to visit Hanna with a bunch of flowers to thank her. Hanna is a bit offhand about his gratitude and even starts to take a bath in his presence. Michael runs away in embarrassment.

Eventually Michael decides to return, presumably just to catch her in the bath but this time, after a bit of a mishap, it is he who needs the bath and Hanna duly supplies one. Seeing him in the bath gets her thinking. She decides she fancies a bit of that as a thank you and gets her own kit off. In this manner, Michael begins a passionate affair with a mysterious woman more than twice his age.

Hanna tells him that she likes being read to and he discovers that if he reads literature to her, Hanna will be passionately grateful in return. The 'kid', as she calls him, treats her to 'The Odyssey', 'Huckleberry Finn' and 'The Lady with the Little Dog' among others and in return she treats him... to... well plenty.



All the time, Hanna is remote and uncommunicative. He learns little about her, although he does asks her name as early as the third shag, pushy or what. Other than that, she doesn't offer anything to him, other than herself. It is clear she is using Michael, in more ways than one, but he is enjoying it immensely and finds himself hopelessly in love with her. This causes friction at home and with his schoolmates where he passes up on a girl called Sophie, who appears eager for him to read to her.



Hanna works as a glum conductor on the trams but when she is offered promotion to an office job, she disappears and Michael is heartbroken. The story moves on eight years. Michael is now studying law and his class attend a war crimes trial. Which is a pretty cool field trip to have.

He is stunned to see Hanna across the courtroom, standing as a defendant in the trial. Talk about someone popping the bubble of your first love. He learns that his former lover was an SS guard during the war and she is on trial with five other women for allowing several hundred prisoners to burn to death inside a church. The trial traumatises Michael, he has never gotten over his love for Hanna, and now he is guilt ridden for having fallen for her.

He also realises that what he knows about Hanna might influence the trial. He discusses this with his teacher but these conversations aren't elaborated on, which is a shame. In the end, Michael holds his silence and so condemns Hanna to a lifetime in jail. It also begs the question as to what Hanna's lawyer was playing at. Didn't do his research very well, did he?

The film portrays Hanna as a simple person, used to taking orders, someone just doing her job. Hanna herself seem to understand little of what she was accused of and was prepared to take the wrap for the others rather than experience a little embarrassment because of her own inadequacies.

Michael never felt able to visit Hanna in jail, but as a way of erasing some of his guilt he records himself reading the same books he read to her during their love affair and sends them to her in prison. Michael is now played by Ralph Fiennes, whose glum demeanour makes Hanna look positively cheerful. It is such a change from the lively young Michael played by David Kross. Michael now comes across as a weak man, unable to get his head around the two sides of the woman he knew.

As her release draws near, he finally visits her, now played by a cosmetically aged Winslet. However he is as distant to her as she was at first to him, if not more so and he basically condemns Hanna a second time. This time she takes her own life.

At the end of the film, Michael travels to the flat of a Jewish woman who was one of the survivors and wrote a book about it. Her book was used in evidence at the trial. It is Hanna's dying wish that her few savings went to her. Michael makes an embarrassing bodge of dealing with this. What did he hope to achieve? Somehow, he appeared to think he might be welcome.

It’s a good film, full of interesting ideas, but suffers from an uninspiring execution of these idea. There are too many questions, not enough answers. This was surely the intention but it is unsatisfying. The key element of the story became clear to me early on. It may even have been a better film had it been made obvious at the start and therefore elaborated on. I also like a bit of controversy in my films but I'm afraid, on that front, this was a letdown too.

Winslet is good but in trying to play Hanna as moody but comes across as a bit wooden and she's better than that. Perhaps, in trying to push for an Oscar she's pushed too hard. Fiennes part is more of a supporting role, at times it is unnecessary, and undoes a lot of the good work done by David Kross, who is excellent.