Deathproof

Tonight's film is Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino's answer to 1970's B-movies. Filmed in a grainy 70's style with poorly cut reels, screen flicker, scratches and burns but with mobile phones and mp3 players thrown in just to confuse. Then halfway through he gives up on this style and goes all black and white, then finally into glorious colour, where we stay all the way to the finale.
The film is about a psychopath called Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) who enjoys killing women but his weapon of choice is his virtually indestructible 'death proof' stunt car. There isn't really any story as such and what there is isn't very original and has stolen ideas from all sorts of places but that's our Quentin.



The film consists of two pretty random scenes. The first is of a group of girls in a bar who are talking tedious girl talk about boyfriends and making out. Tarantino himself plays the barman in the bar. The girls may be good looking but listening to them is like sitting near a group of teenage girls using their mobiles on the Red Arrow to Derby. I suppose it's a typical Tarantino scene that has nothing much to do with anything. The problem is, the talk goes on way too long. If he was trying to build up tension then it doesn't quite work. It made me not want to sympathise with the characters but then perhaps that was the idea.



Did he decide to make a Tarantino movie with girls instead of guys. Hence we get the usual long dialogues but with girls talking girl topics rather than guys talking guy stuff. Is he sending up men or women here?

Perhaps all the talk pissed Stuntman Mike off too, because after he befriends them, he decides to kill them. We get a great crash scene and some excellent decapitations. They are replayed, Ian McEwen style, from the perspective of each of the girls as they meet their gory end.



Then we get the second random scene. Another group of tedious girls who seem to re-enact the opening diner scene from Reservoir Dogs. A girl version that is. Again the talking goes on a bit. These girls like cars and get hold of one on a test drive. One of them, dressed in a cheerleaders outfit, stays behind as collateral with the dodgy looking chap who is selling the car.

Whereas the first group were completely passive and were an easy target, Mike has bitten off more than he could chew with this lot. They are much tougher and fight back when he attacks them. We get a good car chase, if somewhat repetitive, with stuntwoman Zoe Bell looking great writhing around on the bonnet. In the end the girls win out and do Mike over but I'm a bit disappointed she didn't put that pole to better use. Whereas you feel kind of appalled by the first slaughter, you really feel quite elated by the second.

It's the kind of movie you either love or hate but then you either, get Quentin or you don't or you just watch the movie. I thought Death Proof was pure unadulterated fun. Loud, silly, quite artistic, and brutally violent. It put a smile on my face. The whole movie goes nowhere, brilliantly. Very Tarantino. Russell is excellent as the utterly deranged Stuntman Mike and the soundtrack too is a well worth a listen.

Apparently Death Proof was originally released as a 75-minute short film in the States as part of a 70's style double bill with fake trailers in between. If that version involved less dialogue then that might cure the faults in this film.



However I'd like to know what happened when the girls took what was left of the car back and what happened to the girl in the cheerleader outfit.

La Vie En Rose

Tonight's cultural experience is La vie en rose, which is about the life of Edith Piaf. Now I know very little about Piaf and I thought this film would be an excellent way of finding out about her and her life. Big mistake. The film does not deal with her life story in the form of a proper biography with a beginning and an end. In fact it starts with her final days, when she looked like a 70-year old woman, despite only being 47. Then the film shifts back and forth in time. Yep, it's another of my favourite backwards films. Except it's not even as simple as that. The film jumps haphazardly through her life, from childhood to adulthood to the end of her life, continually, back and forth. People appear and disappear from the film with very little explanation.
Perhaps this is deliberate, because Piaf was a woman of such high emotions and had such dramatic upheavals in her life. Perhaps her life receives the framework it deserves but for someone like me, who knew little about her, this lack of continuity just leaves me very confused and doesn't give me any clear sense of the shape of the life.

What I do discover is that she was abandoned by her mother, raised by a surrogate mother in a brothel, goes blind for a while, then is taken away from her surrogate mother to live with her father, who works in the circus and then she becomes a street singer. Then a cabaret owner discovers her and whisks her off the street and onto the stage. She is accused of murder but is eventually discovered by a composer and a radio impresario. By then she's already a heavy drinker and struggles with a drug addiction, although there are no specifics of this.

There is little mention of her successful career. The film focuses mainly on her tragedies, of which there are many. There are very few high points and happy moments in the film. Surely at some stage she must have been famous, healthy, and happy all at the same time?

Instead tragedy follows her around. Her love affair with a French boxing champion ends when he dies in a plane crash while heading to see her. On that night, we see him enter her bedroom and she prepares him coffee but we are given to understand that this is a figment of her imagination.

Also I'm not expert but I understand key points like her participation in WWII resistance activities were omitted, as well as her marriage late in life to a Greek singer twenty years her junior, who appears to give her a child.

At the end, a composer plays a new song for her, "Je ne regrette rien". This strikes a chord with her and inspires her to go ahead with a concert at the Paris Olympia, despite the fact that she has to be led to the stage, because she can hardly walk.



It's a good film, I think, but I'm afraid because of being unable to get fully involved in the film; I feel none of the emotion that I'm told this film would make me feel. You have to be a fan to get full benefit. By the end, I couldn't tell if she was in Paris, New York, on her deathbed or getting ready for her last concert.

I have 'no regrets' about seeing this film, but it was hard work.

Atonement

Before we went my partner told me of her dilemma, whether to read the bloody book first or not because generally life's too short to read Ian McEwan. Personally after hearing what she has said about the ones she has read and after having seen Enduring Love, I have no plans to read any of them but will happily see the films.

In this case, DO NOT under any circumstances read the book first because it will totally ruin the film for you. You really do not want to know how it finishes in advance.

I had my reservations about going because of the casting of Keira Knightly and James McAvoy. Surely so much wet in one place will cause us all to drown under the sentimentality of the generic costume-drama formula. I was wrong; I should have had more faith in Mr McEwan and the director Joe Wright.

The McEvanisms are great, scenes are replayed from different perspectives, there's a touch of running the film backwards, and then huge time jumps forwards, even perhaps a touch of sideways. You'll either love it or hate it; strangely I kept up and loved it.

The first hour is brilliant. 13-year-old Briony Tallis misunderstands what she sees from her bedroom window when she sees her sister Cecilia (Knightly) dive into a fountain, a very deep one, as their housekeeper's son Robbie (McAvoy) watches.



Then when Robbie writes a letter to Cecilia, he gives it Briony to give to her sister but he gives her the wrong draft. Briony reads the rather 'direct' letter before delivering it.

Here we get a tip on how to pick up women. There's a key word in this letter and the film dramatically repeats it several times, letter by letter, just in case you missed it or in case anyone has covertly snuck their 14-year-old Daughter in to see the film. It's wonderfully shocking because the film had been so prim and proper up to that point.

However it seems that with our Keira the direct approach works best and Robbie must have been glad he didn't send her the intended traditional softly softly romantic letter after all. I was just disappointed that when she led him into the library and leant back against the desk she didn't just lie back and say 'go on then Robbie'. Actions speak louder than words and all that but sadly no. Mind you before you could say 'kiss my ...' he had her climbing the bookcase in ecstasy. I am taking notes. Worryingly Daughter probably was too. Unfortunately Briony witnesses this rather strange love scene, which confirms her belief that her sister is the victim of a mad sexual predator.



Keira reckons she may become famous for the earlier fountain scene where you can see her bush through her wet clothes. Strangely this is noticeable when viewed from the sister's window but not when the scene is repeated close-up. Lost your bottle eh Mr Wright? Anyhow Keira is wrong; the scene she will be famous for is the one where the housekeeper's son did it with conviction in the library.

Then when Briony's friend and cousin, Lola is attacked and presumably raped, as a childish act of revenge, she lies to the police and wrongly accuses Robbie. The police believe her, and Robbie is imprisoned and thus separated from Cecilia.

After such a whirlwind of a start, the film then falls a bit flat. We move on four years and Robbie is in the army to attain early release from prison. He pines to get back to Cecilia, who is now working as a nurse in London. Meanwhile Briony, who has now realised her mistake, is trying to atone for it.



Some of the scenes in France and particularly at Dunkirk (shot in Redcar), are overlong and did not appear to add much to the film. It would have been better to have spent more time wallowing in Briony's guilt and on the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia and how this affected the family etc but I don't know if the book deals with this or not.



It picks up again towards the end. Robbie confronts Briony about what she's done, his anger causes her to cower in the corner, terrified he will strike her. I almost stand up and for the second time I want Keira to say to McAvoy 'Go on then Robbie', lets see you put her through that window but sadly no he doesn't.

At the end Vanessa Redgrave appears as an elderly Briony and tidies up all the loose ends. Not. Instead she delivers an unexpected twist that had all the girls in the audience reaching for the Kleenex and all the boys muttering 'Cool' under their breath. It's all so Ian McEwan. Ultimately she finds a way of telling a second lie to try and atone for the first, if only in her own mind.

Overall, a mostly riveting film full of young British talent with a very clever story. Even old Keira Flat Chest was not as wooden as usual and didn't do anything wrong but then all she had to do was smoke, look wistful and shag McAvoy. Not terribly taxing and her accent seemed all Middlesex girl pretending to be an American actress playing an English girl.

McAvoy was actually rather good, although he did seem to leave his accent somewhere in the French countryside. Although for me he'll never top being strung up by his nipples in The Last King Of Scotland. His finest moment.

The star though was Saoirse Ronan who was outstanding as the young Briony.

I don't like a happy ending and this one spoilt the film a touch for me. Having them frolicking by their dream cottage that they never shared in real life was over the top. As were scenes like seeing Cecilia floating artistically beneath the underground.

The film will surely pick up Oscar nominations:- best film, director Joe Wright, actor (James McAvoy), supporting actress (Saoirse Ronan), editing, cinematography, the haunting score, which reverberates throughout the film with the rhythmic tapping of typewriter keys... blimey they might even give Keira a mention.

Obviously Knightly/McAvoy fans will like this film no matter what. For everyone else it'll depends on whether you 'get' Ian McEwan or not. I rather liked it. What's next Ian?

Hallam Foe

Hallam Foe is a bit of a weirdo, played by Jamie Bell, who is obsessed with his dead mother. He lives with his dad, played by Ciaran Hinds, and his stepmother who he suspects of having murdered his mother. He seems to spend a lot of time pretending to be a badger, watching and spying on people from a distance. Told you it was odd.
When his step-mother comes up to his tree-house and confronts him with his diary, in which he's recorded his spying missions, he tries to strangle her but she grabs his crotch and they end up having sex on the floor. I was going to say you would wouldn’t you but even I’m not sure about that one. All very bizarre. A very odd way of handling the situation.

After that incident he leaves home and heads for Edinburgh, where he sees a complete stranger who eerily resembles his mother. He smooth talks her into giving him a job as a kitchen porter in the hotel where she is manageress. Then he starts to stalk her by taking to the rooftops and begins to regard the girl, Kate, played by Sophia Myles, as a potential shag. Well, in this case, you most certainly would, wouldn’t you.



He spies on her sex sessions, with her married lover, which she doesn't seem to enjoy very much.

So the film is a weird voyeuristic, eccentric drama come slightly incestuous love story with a bit of humour. Hallam gets away with things that would land most people in jail or get them institutionalised but he is also clever. When Kate’s thoroughly dislikeable lover rumbles him, he manages to track down the guy's apartment and smooth talk his wife and therefore blackmail him.



In the end Kate seduces Hallam but she too is a totally gaga. Typical girl I suppose. When she discovers his secrets, she is a tad pissed off but is she pissed off because he spied on her getting a rough seeing-to or because he's shagging her because she resembles his mother? She has him stood naked in front of her while she interrogates him about his behaviour. Quite how or why this happens, we’re not sure, the film doesn’t tell us. It seems however that his voyeurism doesn’t bother her; perhaps women find that sort of thing a big turn on. Is this where I’ve been going wrong?

There are far too many odd moments to mention and there's no happy ending, which is a bonus. It’s all complemented by a lively soundtrack provided by Domino records. I went straight out and bought the CD.

Well directed and acted. Jamie Bell has got all the credit but the whole cast puts in great performances. The film is quite plainly mad but don't hold that against it.