June, 2011

Two for the Road: The Trip

By John Semley

Midway through Michael Winterbottom’s The Trip, an enticing bit of trivia tumbles out of Rob Brydon’s Welsh mouth: apparently, co-star Steve Coogan (like Brydon, playing “himself”) was in the running for the eponymous role in HBO’s The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004), edged out by Geoffrey Rush. Like plenty of things in The Trip, it’s hard to know how this tidbit relates to reality (though a cursory Google search of “Steve Coogan + Life and Death of Peter Sellers” seems to substantiate it), but the veracity is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that it’s brought up at all, because even this faint invocation of Stephen Hopkins’ so-so Sellers biopic colours The Trip’s naval-gazing dramedy in ways that needle a little too deliberately. Incidentally or not, Winterbottom’s film suggests a kind of alternate universe which orbits around the sun of its grumbling star: one in which it’s Steve Coogan, not Geoffrey Rush, cashing cheques for Green Lantern and unending Pirates of the Caribbean pictures while basking in the critical acclaim of The King’s Speech (2010). For if The Trip is anything, apart from a magnificently satisfying showcase for Coogan and Brydon’s effortless improvisational interplay (and persistent Michael Caine impressions), it’s a teasingly fluid play between the real-deal Steve Coogan and the alternately charming, dopey, and self-pitying “Steve Coogan” that Winterbottom allows his star to present, riffing on the thin line between Coogan’s on- and off-screen manifestations of comic melancholia and unrestrained egomania. (At one point a dreaming “Steve” is confronted by the newspaper headline “COOGAN IS A CUNT,” continued, below the fold, with “SAYS DAD.”)

(more…)

Share
 

DVD: Nicolas Roeg’s Insignificance

By José Teodoro

Nicolas Roeg began his directing career only after working for more than two decades as a focus puller, camera operator, and eventually cinematographer for the likes of David Lean, Richard Lester and François Truffaut. Yet what was already clear by the time of Walkabout (1971), his solo directorial debut and penultimate credit as cinematographer, was that Roeg’s striking directorial signature was grounded in editing, in the dismantling and reassembly of his immaculately crafted images in sequences that sacrificed causal narrative fluidity for a radical adherence to the unconscious or instinctive associative patterns of his characters’ psyches. While it’s difficult to imagine Roeg’s studies of sexual obsession existing before the temporal puzzles of Alain Resnais’ L’année dernière à Marienbad (1961) and Muriel (1963)—not to mention the cut-up technique devised by Brion Gysin and William S. Burroughs—there is no single precedent for Roeg’s particular brand of corporeal cubism or collage as narrative crust. Flashing forward and backward with abandon, Roeg’s impulse to break every scene apart and spread the shards around can lead to realizations either profound, cryptic or banal; it’s an all-inclusive approach, and one whose success is finally as contingent on the quality of the source material as any conventional film.

(more…)

Share
 

Lantern Corpse: Green Lantern

By Bart Testa

That Green Lantern is a painfully confused and overwrought film is obvious at a glance: the plotting is uneven, errant, repetitive and sluggish, larded with metaphysical hooey and featuring too many ceremonial set-pieces on a faraway planet and too many pointless trips to the balcony of the designated love interest (the inaptly named Blake Lively). Even in a summer that has already seen the Marvel-derived Thor thumping across the screen looking for his hammer, Green Lantern is too much, and without that film’s surprisingly humourous emphasis on its titular hero’s blond, amiable stupidity. No matter its third-tier hero and general outlandishness, the salient ingredients of Green Lantern—briskly efficient action veteran Martin Campbell, who refreshed the James Bond franchise with Casino Royale (2006), and lead Ryan Reynolds, a strong comedian whose bravado and intensity carried the stark premise of Buried (2010)—bore some promise that has been decisively wasted. Green Lantern is not just a bad comic book movie, but an incontinent one—an expenditure of a potential franchise on its first go.

(more…)

Share
 

All About Steve: Super 8

By Adam Nayman

Put on the spot in an interview about why there were so many lens flares in his reboot of Star Trek (2009), J.J. Abrams joked that it was “because the future was so bright that it couldn’t be contained in the frame.” Super 8, which takes place in a 1979 that is in its own way as meticulously production-designed as the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise, features fewer of these blinding blips, but they’re still integrated into the overall visual design in a way that begs our indulgence—and inquiry.

Appropriately for something that makes it difficult to look directly at the screen, the meaning of this literally flashy technique can be a little bit tricky to discern. The artificial lens flare is a manufactured defect, a means of approximating the fallibility of human vision even when all or part of what’s being glimpsed by the camera eye has been created in a digital void—making it the perfect aesthetic signature for the CGI era. But Abrams, supposedly, is some kind of throwback analog figure: a commercial entertainer more interested in building his characters than blowing them up. How anyone could seriously make this assertion after seeing this transplanted television-auteur’s choices of feature film material (two mammoth studio franchises) is another good question, but we’ll go with it long enough to point out that the best thing about Super 8 is a scene that directly interrogates its director’s relationship to cinematic spectacle—a scene framed by, you guessed it, a lens flare.

(more…)

Share
 

Katherine Heigl Is a Liar: Bridesmaids

By Nicole Armour

The most discussed set-piece in Paul Feig’s hilarious Bridesmaids sees the bride’s attendants contracting food poisoning while visiting a sterile bridal salon. While clothed in objectionable, expensive garments, their bodies rebel and the group, including the bride, starts vomiting and shitting everywhere. In wedding tradition, the ritual of dress shopping is meant to waylay the bride’s apprehensions about her physicality—flaws can be cinched by tulle and satin—and transform her into the doll she’s always fantasized about being. Of course, the corollary of this achievement is forcing obliging friends to don dresses so irredeemable that their wearers can’t come close to the bride’s loveliness. (This form of female competitiveness resembles the conduct of naked mole rats, wherein the queen secures her reign over the breeding males by spreading hormones via her urine that render other females temporarily infertile.) In life and in movies, playing a bridesmaid is a unique source of manipulation and humiliation and IS therefore an easy joke. Bridesmaids trounces this concept by refusing to denigrate the characters or the actors by merely costuming them in silly dresses. Instead, the tradition itself is attacked with egalitarianism and gusto; they literally shit all over it.

(more…)

Share
 
© 2010 Cinema Scope
Design by Adrian Kinloch