#30. The King's Speech, #31. Elizabeth, #32. Robin Hood (2010) - Analysis

The King's Speech PosterWhen considering the sheer amount of films in existence detailing the British monarchy it is safe to assume that the English adore their own history. With hundreds of films, mini-series, docudramas, documentaries, and made-for-television movies having been produced, the subject of British kings and queens has evolved into a substantial subgenre in and of iself, and understandably so. Even the oldest of monarchs make exciting cinematic subject matter. 6^th century ruler King Arthur has appeared in several different settings, some action, others fantasy. Peter O’Toole’s rendition of Henry II in Becket (1964) and The Lion in Winter (1968) are still considered the definitive interpretation of the king to this day. What is this attraction to not just royalty, but British royalty specifically, and does it only affect native Englishmen?

The simplest answer to this question is also its most apparent. From Richard I in countless Robin Hood adaptations to this past year’s Oscar winning portrayal of King George VI in The King’s Speech, England’s monarchal system of government provides an endless source of inspiration for storytellers and filmmakers alike. While some screenwriters take advantage of a certain monarch’s legend, others will use a king or queen as a base, creating inventive story threads amongst history’s more peripheral characters. Somewhere between a local celebrity and a demigod, English rulers’ popularity fluctuates throughout history. With each monarch landing somewhere unique on karma’s ever-judging reticulum, actions can most definitely (but now always) speak louder than words. Of course, it is when actions hit the screen, and dialogue professed in actuality rings false that cinema, a medium forever shackled down by the limitless possibilities yielded by fiction, as a tool and a curse, shall fail as a device employed for truth. For films like Tom Hooper’s The King’s Speech, Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth, and even Ridley Scott’s disastrous Robin Hood adaptation, these historical reconstructions all begin with good intentions, and must find the line where accuracy meets entertainment.

Robin Hood 2010

The King’s Speech and Robin Hood can be found on opposite ends of this spectrum. Although riddled with inaccuracies, The King’s Speechnot only won over the public, but enchanted critics as well. In an article defrauding the film’s more apathetic intentions, journalist David Freeman wrote that The King’s Speech “. . . is being sold as a feel-good tale of how a friendship between a royal and a commoner affected the course of history. But… the film covers up Winston Churchill’s support for Edward VIII… and that the movie fails to acknowledge that the once tongue-tied George VI supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.” (Freeman) How does a film that bears false witness to a moment in time also generate positive buzz and audience affections? I believe it goes back to my original answer, and that is drama trumps reality. The common moviegoer is more interested in Freeman’s “feel-good” film than the alternate version where the hero George VI is instead a Nazi sympathizer. Robin Hood on the other hand failed on both accounts. Scott overly produced a nonsensical take on a highly divisive legend and was unable to successfully tell a historically accurate or engaging story.

Elizabeth PosterWhile the obvious dramatic baggage that comes along with hijacking history provides ample fodder ripe for cinematic theatrics, I do believe there is a deeper motivation that guides this regal obsession. It is more interesting peeking behind the royal curtain to witness a king’s hardships than an equal; a mere mortal if you will. There is a voyeuristic quality no doubt, and this notion of behind-the-scenes access coupled with elitism and class barriers perhaps tickles some evolutionary suppressed instinct built into our human nature. That is, we all envy those that tower above us, especially those presumably chosen by God, so there is a very natural feeling of enjoyment when we find out these royal men and woman have the same insecurities (The King’s Speech) and idiosyncrasies (The Madness of King George) that plague all mankind; thus substantiating the middle class fraternity that is populism. By defining great and powerful leaders, these films, in some way, help us to define ourselves.

Interestingly enough, and somewhat off topic, it must be asked why, not just Americans, but filmgoers in general, do not crave films focused on past presidents? The attraction to films chronicling English monarchs does not just affect the Brits, but Americans (and every other country to be sure) as well. It is a curious attitude indeed, especially considering the dramatic properties so obvious when considering the lives and careers of our many great leaders. Although one could dedicate an entire thesis in an attempt to answer this question, I do feel it must have something to do with the fact that all presidents begin as common men. Unlike English kings or queens, who are believed to have been appointed by God, presidents are men. They play on and manipulate the very insecurities defined by populism to gain favor among the common, and it may be that throughout the election process they lose that mystique.

Kings and queens will forever be a fascinating topic, if for no other reason than they are in fact the “them.” The unknown, a lifestyle shrouded in secrecy and defined mostly by presumption. It is with this clouded culture, filled with as much pomp-and-circumstance as cloak-and-dagger, that will both excite and endear storytellers and moviegoers for as long as the medium exists.

#29. Hugo - Review

Hugo Poster 2011Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is a love letter to film, and the cinefiles that adore the history of the medium. So enchanting is the story of the titular orphan and his indomitable will that the small world the film takes place, almost entirely within the walls of a Paris train station, is majestically simple and yet staggeringly absorbing. Those seeking uncomplicated children’s fare may feel somewhat overwhelmed by Hugo’s weighty aspirations. It strives for more than the undemanding emotional highs that endear Pixar films to so many, and expects far more from its audience than the common family film.

Hugo 2011The son of a clock-maker, 12-year old Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is forced to live with his loutish alcoholic uncle Claude (Ray Winstone) when his father is killed in an unfortunate, and somewhat mysterious, museum fire. Hugo becomes Claude’s apprentice as the caretaker of all the clocks at a busy Paris train station. For their services the duo receives free room and board at the depot, living and sleeping amidst the thunderous reverberations of the giant, ever-turning gears. Claude quickly abandons Hugo at the station, leaving the mechanical prodigy to tend to all of the depot’s timekeeping. Realizing it is either the station or the orphanage, Hugo successfully orchestrates a shadowy existence within the walls and crevices of the train station. He survives by stealing croissants from the local bakery, rummages crumbs from preoccupied passengers, all the while avoiding the attention of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo’s only friend is also the only thing he has to remember his father by, a broken metallic automaton that the pair was in the middle of repairing before the fire.

Hugo Automaton 2011This peculiar little robot is where my synopsis must end, for explaining any more of Hugo’s many spinning gears would be a terrible disservice, especially for those with any affection for cinema’s silent beginnings. Scorsese constructs his film not unlike the evolution of his medium. The first 20-minutes or so are heavily reminiscent of early silent movies, relying on the expressive faces of Butterfield and Cohen to reveal the setting. It is probably not a mistake that in many scenes Butterfield’s large blue eyes reminded me of Buster Keaton’s haunting gaze. As the film progresses so to does its cinematic style, evoking stalwart reminders of cinema’s evolutionary timeline.

Of course this is Scorsese’s film, and yet unlike any feature film he has ever created. Reminiscent of the obvious passion he has for the subjects in his documentaries, I was pleasantly impressed by the director’s flair for family friendly fun. His 1930s Paris is stunningly gorgeous, and yet not overtly relied upon to dazzle the audience. Instead the majority of the film takes place inside the bustling train station, with cafés and flower shops assembled in such away as to echo familiar images of lively Paris corners seen in countless films from the past.

Hugo is a unique experience in an era of dumb downed cinematic exploits. Scorsese demands a level of patience and awareness from his audience, refusing to treat any patrons like infants. Hugo is built upon the foundation of Scorsese’s love of cinema and storytelling, and those willing to invest in his valiant Hugo Cabret will be rewarded with a prize rarely experienced in not only film, but in all media: genuineness. 

Sacha Baron Cohen in Hugo 2011This film deserves more consideration and admiration than I can provide presently, but I can all but guarantee Hugo will inspire both dedicated study and unabashed hyperbolic praise for years to come. Please let me know what you thought of Scorsese’s latest in the comment’s section below, and tell me if I am correct in my love for this film, or have just been duped by a crafty and manipulative filmmaker. Also, please help out the site by clicking the “Share” button below and linking this review to your favorite social networks! 

The Magic of Green Screen

#28. Sauna - Review

Sauna 2008Sauna is the great WTF experience I have so desperately wanted lately. Taking place over 400-years ago, Sauna begins at the end of a 25-year long war between Finland and Russia. Four men, two Russian and two Finnish, are sent out to plot new borderlines as part of the reconstruction effort, and must cross-endless miles of malodorous swampland to reach their goal. The Finnish team, two brothers Erik and Knut, struggle to maintain an amiable relationship with their new Russian comrades, while at the same time must come to terms with the atrocities they committed during wartime.

The events of Sauna are both horrifying and, I must admit, a little bewildering. While I am not completely certain what exactly was going on throughout the film, I do know that it terrified me. Reminiscent of some of the more regarded Japanese horror films of the past 15 years or so, Sauna takes care to fashion a truly ominous atmosphere, while somewhat tripping over its storytelling. Perhaps with another viewing, which I would be more than willing to participate in, I would more capably wrap my little brain around the melancholy happenings of Sauna, but until then all I can do is confess that while I didn’t fully comprehend everything I witnessed, I enjoyed every second of it.

#27. Blazing Saddles - Review

Blazing SaddlesI have to admit I am not very hot on Blazing Saddles, one of the all time classic comedies from mastermind Mel Brooks. More than any other genre, comedy is so subjective, you can very easily learn a lot about a person by their favorite comedies. Although I do love Young Frankenstein, I am not a Mel Brooks fan. I appreciate his films and what they have done to push the boundaries of not only the genre but also film in general; I just do not find them that funny that's all. Although Blazing Saddles works, it’s just so damn slow I have to fight my way through to the end. I know I am crazy, but am I wrong? Let me know in the comments.

Michael J. Fox playing "Johnny B. Goode" live!

So here is a clip of Michael J. Fox playing guitar on a live performance of "Johnny B. Goode" for a Parkinson's benefit. Of course everyone remembers that amazing moment during Back to the Future  when McFly busts the Enchantment Under the Sea dance wide open with his electric guitar, but just in case you haven't, I have posted that clip as well. Have fun!

Darren Aronofsky "Project Meth" PSAs

Here are the new anti-meth PSAs directed by the king of drug-repercussion movies (Requiem for a Dream anyone?) Darren Aronofsky. They are pretty intense, especially the first one.