All These Creations: February 2015

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

“The Theory Of Everything” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: James Marsh

Writer: Anthony McCarten (screenplay), Jane Hawking (book)

Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior

If you thought that “The theory of everything” will concentrate on the achievements of Stephen Hawking or the way the terrible sickness affected his mind and scientific approach, you will be highly disappointed. As many reviewers pointed out – it is, before anything else, a love story, which is not a bad thing in any way, but I would personally choose the science. Knowing that the movie is a more personal look at the story, based on the book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” by Hawking’s first wife Jane, I was still a bit surprised to see how much of it is focused on their relationship. Many parts of the film actually feel like her biopic rather than his, which could seem a bit manipulative and disappointing, but at least Felicity Jones’ brilliant performance made it intriguing and more watchable than expected. Still, did we really need so much of the Jonathan story, because the first five, ten minutes of their interaction was pretty much enough to show us where things are going?

Most people compare the film with the other Oscar contender “The imitation game” and although it also had problems and was quite conventional, I enjoyed it more as a cinematic experience. Because of the way the story in “The imitation game” is constructed, it had a bit more tension to it and felt more quickly paced. “The theory” seems like a much longer movie, although it’s just about 10 minutes longer. Its advantage seems to be the screenplay, which is a bit more subtle than the “Imitation game” one, that constantly reminded us how important is to embrace being weird.

Just as “The imitation game”, “The theory of everything” is not a game changer, except for the performances, it is quite by-the-numbers romantic drama with a few cute jokes. In the begging we witness the greatly worn out first date montage, where you just wait for the characters to quote the next poetry verse or scientific principle, while standing in front of beautiful backgrounds. It is also one of a few sequences in the movie that feel like a music video. The cinematography is just all over the place. The last “musical” sequence is probably the best example, although the idea behind it is cute. It is also the only scene with good music in it, although it’s not actually written for the movie, it’s a popular instrumental piece by The Cinematic Orchestra and it felt, at least for me, kind of cheap and inconsistent, even more as a video clip. However, I’m sure it plays out fine, if you haven’t heard it. The rest of the score is just horribly melodramatic, obviously manipulative and conventional to the point it makes you feel as if you’re watching at least 60-year-old romantic Hollywood drama. It goes up to eleven whenever something sad happens, in case you haven’t noticed and you don’t know how to react.

Besides that I can’t really say that the movie is bad, because it has good intentions and it’s after all, dedicated to one of the greatest scientists alive. There are a lot of enjoyable moments. For a person that cries a lot at movies, this just made me tear up a few times and mostly because of the performances, which are definitely worth it.

The best reason to see “The theory of everything” remains the acting. And not just for Eddie Redmayne, but for Felicity Jones that was just as amazing. In a way her performance is the emotional center of the film, because the physical restrictions of Hawking as portrayed by Redmayne, although absolutely greatly done, also reduce his expressiveness. However, what really saved the movie for me was a really small thing, that would make any film lover very happy. It’s the “Daisy, daisy” moment – if you have to, just google it.

The movie has 7,8 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_1

7,4 from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-theory-of-everything

79% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_theory_of_everything_2014

Trailer:

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

“The Grand Budapest Hotel”

As A Discussion About The Power Of Art

Year: 2014

Director: Wes Anderson

Writers: Stefan Zweig (inspired by his writings), Wes Anderson, Hugo Guinness

Stars: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton

Great painters tell stories not only with their sheer talent and thematic sensibilities, but by creating their own unique color pallet, by meticulously composing everything in the scene and even picking the frames for the paintings. With masterful technique in composition, stunning colors, magical soundtracks and unforgettable faces, Wes Anderson does the same with his films.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is the perfect example for that and while some consider Anderson’s film-making superficial, isn't it what the movie is all about – the “faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity”? It’s about the “glimmers” that barely survive trapped between the beautiful, but surfacy colors of the hotel. It’s about Monsieur Gustave H., who’s trying to sustain the illusion of refined, cultured world with the use of immaculate speech (poetry is extremely important here), looks and, of course, lots of “L'air de Panache” that mask the darkest realities of the modern world, as well as his own flaws. A great example for this is the scene after the prison break when Monsieur Gustav shows his own prejudices, because there’s no “L'air de Panache” to hide his unpleasant smell – literally and metaphorically. And just like any painter trying to capture all the beauty and vibrancy of the world, even Wes Anderson has to step back and drain the screen of its colors when the heroes are finally confronted with the monstrous reality of the war in the last train scene. Sadly, that’s what the Reich wanted – a very white world.

This really reminded me of a song, so here it is. From another “flamboyant” man questioning some modern values.

With the use of colors (or none in the train scene), with the deliberate change of the aspect ratio according to the time period, with the transforming appearance of the hotel, even the contrast between the two paintings in the film, the director seems to emphasize on the fragility of culture, on the ever-changing understanding and significance of art, which sometimes loses the battle to make the world a better place. What art seemingly does is to mirror reality and to transform along with it - just with a little bit more colors and… “panache”.

And in a way Monsieur Gustav is the artist in the story – the extravagant dreamer that awakens the bright colors in the world of “The Grand Budapest” making it more like an art album than a history book. Most of the time he simply prefers to ignore the changing world - at one point he’s given a newspaper and completely dismisses the news of the war starting. When we are introduced to the author he also seems a bit detached from society - he talks about his loneliness, treating it like a disease. Because of that he needs to visit the hotel in attempt to find something that's missing from his world. And yet, as we can see in the most recent time period, he transcends the harsh realities of history, becoming a national treasure.

This shows that despite often having just decorative purposes, art has the power to help us survive. Although the inheritance of the old lady is split just as the war is shattering Europe into pieces, the drama is still focused on the stolen art. And while the war ushers the world into a new era - the old priceless masterpiece is replaced by a piece by the modern painter Schiele. It's quickly destroyed, probably because before the war Schiele was seen more as an art criminal, rather than a modern master.

However, the work's not actually a Schiele masterpiece - it's a painting by Rich Pellegrino, commissioned specifically for the movie. Wes Anderson wanted it to look like a painting by Schiele, just as he wanted "Boy with apple" to resemble Flemish mannerist painters from the XVI century. This one was commissioned to Michael Taylor. So, both paintings are in fact fakes that emulate a certain artistic aesthetic, just as the "The Grand Budapest Hotel" as a film immerses us into different historical periods, re-imagined with Anderson's distinctive paintbrush. Even the characters in the movie are “fake” in a way. They are not historical figures, but both the author and Monsieur Gustav are loosely based on Stefan Zweig, who had the reputation of passionate idealist. And while The Grand Budapest is still standing it will remind the world that no matter how “fake” and ethereal art is by its nature, it is necessary in order to make us human.