Fury (2014) Review

Fury (2014)


David Ayer, director of Fury (2014) sets the tone for his movie in the opening scene. We see a horizon at sunset with a solider riding a horse appearing from over it. A well lit shot, silohetting the solider, the calming nature of this initial scene leaves us here. Not a minute after this, the soldier (we discover is an SS solidier) is shot dead, by Don 'Wardaddy' Collier (Brad Pitt). Ayer, throws us into the brutal and unrelenting nature of the tail end of WWII as we follow five soldiers and their tank.

David Ayer ditches the conventional handheld camera and opts for smoother takes. We get full force battle scenes contrasting with the quieter ones, suggesting the unpredictabilty of war. One of the strongest points of this movie is the way in which Ayer presents the ideology of brotherhood in his five main chacacters, you truley feel a bond between them. Though this theme is not strongly developed and is brushed over.

Logan Lerman gives a good performance, playing inexperienced, morally conscious Norman Ellison. We see him thrown in at the deep end, having never killed anybody and still completely sensitive to idea of death. Shia Labeouf's comments 'wait until you see what one man can do to another man'. And from here his character begins to develop. What bothers about his story is the 'coming-of-age' aspect to his role. Particularly in the scene in which he meets German girl, Emma. Suddenly, he seems almost accepted into the group, his acceptance is furthered when he mutters 'fucking Nazi's' as though, anger and the ability to brutally kill are what makes him a man. Again, a theme that is not deeply explored.

This film has very little in the way of structured narrative, choosing instead to just quickly unold events. A comment on life in the army perhaps? Other than Norman, the characters have very little in the way of development, not to mentioned how cliched they are. This film is typical mainstream blockbuster, created, I feel, for fans of fast action and louds noises. Itis enjoyable as a whole, enough tension to prevent boredom and enough gore and brutality to shock. For me, it just lacks anything more than this, themes that could have been (possibly should have been) be explored are left shallow and bypassed.

Amercian Horror Story

I am 100% aware that I am very late off the mark with watching this particular show (I usual am to be honest) but American Horror Story has had me captivated this last week. I am only on season 1 so hopefully spoliers will be limited as most fans will be on the most recent season by now.

In a word, it's bonkers. New characters are thrown at you in almost every for the first half of this season. Flashbacks tell us of the absurd history in the house and the current owners are no less unfortunate.

Given that horror is not my favourite when it comes to film genres, I'm surprised that I'm enjoying this series. Each episode feels very cinematic, which I'm finding to be more common with regard to TV shows. I'm not just watching one episode at a time, but 3 maybe 4 episodes in one go. This obvisouly adds to cinematic feel becuase Im watching it in a feature length time scale. Despite some clear flaws, it seems to have me hooked.

It does make use of horribly conventional plot points. A hunted house is the basis of the first season. This house has a not so secret history of murder and death. A sceptical family move in - hunted? pfft, what rubbish - of course. Agnsty teenage daughter remarks that the house has 'character'. Of course.  And so begins the unfolding of the narrative that spans 12 episodes. We meet several characters fairly quickly and slowly begin to discover which are living and which are dead. Though these main plot points are not the most unique they are spun in a webb of choas and mystery that keeps me watching. There is enough exposition throughout to keep it unstandable for passive viewers but certain points are challening enough to maintain to the attention of a more active audience. While it teeters on the edge of predictable, ocassional flashbacks and non-linear narrative keep us on our toes.

As for the themes it addresses, this is where this show gets particularly interesting. From the outset, human capacity for fear and is questioned, fear can lead us to insanity. It can lead us to evil we didnt know we were capable of. It can lead us to question our own and others reality. It often leads us to grip onto a higher being, religion plays a massive part is narratives such as this one. Our desire to indudge in immortality and question the afterlife is continurously addressed. The big question, what is life after death? In this case it is an enernity living within the confines of an old house.


 Though I find the character development interesting, I'm infuriated by the fact that I don't seem to care about any of them. They are all flawed in the every way you'd expect them to be. An adultorous husband. Angsty, spolied child. Whiny, almost self-pitying wife. And then there is the psychotic mistress of said adultorous husband, and Tate. Tate is the ghost son of southern neighbour. He is a murderer and a rapist. And yet, when it comes to Tate I feel that we are supposed to sympathise with him in some way and strangely, I almost do. He seems sweet until you remember what he has done. He insists to Violet (Agnsty teenage daughter) that she has changed him and you want to belive him. I think it is in this character that we are able to question whether it is possible to be born bad, and regardless off wanting to change, that is just who we are.

American Horror Story, plays with conventions that border on the mundane and gives characters, well, very little character in some cases. But it does throw up questions that make you think and it does address them in an interesting way. It also plays with the conventions in a way that keep you watching. Each episode adds new branches to the narrative whilst simultaniously addressing points bought up in previously via flashbacks that open most episodes. Horror fan or not, I'd give it go. Overlook flaws and take an interest in its themes, I think you'll find yourself wanting to keep watching.

Bonfire and Fireworks!

Last night I went over to an early bonfire and fireworks display. I had a lot of fun photographing! I've never quite been able to master photographing fireworks but a small collection turned out well. I love the effects the lights  and colours have.  Fairs and fieworks are some of the best things to photograph when experimenting with shutter speed and the effects of light.


Plus, any excuse to play with sparklers, go on fairground rides and eat condyfloss!

Cornwall

Last summer I made my first visit to Cornwall. I spent a week in July in the lttle porting town of Hayle. There isnt a huge amount there in the way of shops/activities but the beachs are wonderful and it is not far from plenty of other places that will keep you entertained should you need a break from the beach.  I spent a day in St Ives and a day in Mousehole. We were lucky enough to have some of the best weather we'd had all summer (which, when on a British holiday, is always a blessing).

Busy street in St Ives.

The actual park I stayed on left a lot to be desired but that aside,  Cornwall has to be one of the most beautiful places I've been. Mousehole was a quaint village, full of galleries exhibiting local works and scattered with
tearooms. St Ives was similiar just on a larger scale. Several craft fairs were held in church/village halls. Independant shops scattered the streets off the main high street, honesty boxes were placed outside for payment of purchases. So many tearooms, coffee shops and restaurants boasted the use of only local produce and homemade treats. On sweet shop in particular that I couldn't pass by without making a purchase was that of the only homemade fudge in cornwall. I opted for the Baileys variety and it was delicious! Lots of poeple were milling around, in and out of shops/bars or sitting beach side fighting with seagulls to ensure there fish and chips were not swiped. It was relaxed but with sill had a air of excitment and intrique.

Homemade and quite honestly,
the most delicious!

I went equpiped with my Minolta 5000 slr. I love using a good old fashioned film slr, I like the waiting for the images to be developed. (sadly the only place really local to me for development is ASDA so the quality isnt always great but it does the job). In the case of the photographs from this trip, the exposure isn't quite right on the majority of them but this actually has a nice effect on a handful the images.

Francessca Woodman Exhibition

 

A few weeks ago I headed to the Victoria Miro Gallery in London after seeing a advertisment for a Francessca Woodman exhibition. Having been a fan of her work for a couple of years and never having been to an exhibition, I took advantage of this opportunity (and who doesnt want an excuse to spend the day in London)
The gallery was, of course, wonderfully modern, set in what appeared to be a town house whose purpose had been changed. Typically everything was bright white, clean lined and high ceilinged. The images on the wall were small but perfectly placed, the only peice of funiture in sight was the small umbrella stand.

The exhibition was of Woodman's Zig-Zag series. What I love about this particular series of images is how well they work as stand alone peices as well as fitting perfectly together as one. Her work is fascinating. She creates self-portraits while keeping herself from being the main focus. Wodman blends herself into her surroundings, be that by literally wrapping her arms in bark or blurring her own figure wth long exposure. She uses he own body as she would use any of the other objects within her images. The images above are just a miniscule few of 100's that she created.

Francessa Woodman
Victoria Miro Gallery
October 2014

Tate Modern

 As the exhibition was relatively small, consisting of just 25 of the photographers images, I had plenty of time to take a stroll over to the Tate Modern. As ever they had some wonderful work on display. It is always nice to see the Picasso's and Dali's and Monet's. They currently have a display of Si Twombli's work too (Known to me only because its my sisters favourite artist.) which was great.

I was surprised by the amount of photography they had up. Robert Mapplethorpe. Albert Renger-Patzsch. One particular photographer called Hrair Sarkissian caught my eye. The body of work he has on display is titled Execution Squares 2008.

For this work he photographed areas in three different cities in Syria. All of which were places that have had public executions take place. The image below was one of my favourite from the series - worth having a look at!

Execution Squares 10
Hrair Sarkissian

'Lightheaded' - Mimik Studios short animated film

A friend showeed me this wonderful short animated film (below) a couple of days ago. Worth having a watch, great animation and story!
Vimeo have some excellent short films, looking through the 'Staff Picks' is always a great place to start!

Lightheaded from Mimik Studios on Vimeo.

First Aid Kit

I have become completely in love with First Aid Kit over the last couple of week.

Should we swap high brow novels for something less challenging?

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11141627/Cant-get-into-highbrow-novels-Ditch-them-says-Nick-Hornby.html

I read the article that this link takes you to on the Telegraph website this morning.

The article was basically a discussion about whether we should stop forcing ourselves to read books we find to difficult.

According to this and other articles regarding the same subject, many people force themselves through books they find too challenging simply because they feel they ought to (or most likely in the case of young people, because they're teacher has told them to). Nick Hornby argues that this begins to make reading feel like a chore, lessening he enjoyment and therefore not opting to read on a regular basis.

I think I am inclined to agree with such a statement.

Why should people feel a 'sense of duty' to persevering to the end if it is simply too challenging. Reading should be enjoyable. Though I am not adverse to a challenging text, it has to be said I am someone that will feel guilty if I do not make it the end of the novel, I usually find its worth it in the end (Not every time, but mostly). However, I also thoroughly enjoy picking up an easier book, usually one I've read multiple times and reading it cover to cover in a night or two.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower, for example, is a book I've read upwards of five times and will continue to re-read whenever I want an easy book. The Harry Potter series also comes into this, as does a whole lot of children's stories. The Lemoney Snicket series, Alice in Wonderland, all of these, though they may not be the most challenging texts, or the most acclaimed, give me a break from thinking about a book too hard. If I only read difficult books all the time, I don't think I'd enjoy reading the same way I do now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with picking up an easy book and just enjoying it. Thats not to say we shouldn't challenge ourselves regularly, but there should be no pressure to read a book just because people think you should.

Here is one quote I particularly liked:
"Every time we pick up a book for a sense of duty and we find that we're struggling to get through it, we're reinforcing the notion that reading is something you should do but telly is something you want to do."



'Some books should be tasted, some devoured, but only a few should be chewed and digested thoroughly.’
Francis Bacon

Gone Girl (Fincher, 2014)

Gone Girl (2014)

David Fincher’s highly anticipated thriller, Gone Girl, based on Gillian Fylnn’s novel of the same name, is certainly worth watching. Ben Affleck plays protagonist Nick Dunne as he struggles to decipher the mystery surrounding his missing wife, Amy Elliott Dunne, (Roasmund Pike) whilst unintentionally putting himself into the spotlight as prime suspect for her murder.

                   We begin just before the end. A softly lit shot of Amy Elliott-Dunne presumably lying in the lap of Nick as he plays with her hair. The genteel nature of this shot contrasts with the opening narration, voiced by Nick. The film opens with 3 questions. ‘What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we done to each?’ This sets the tone for the 2 hours 29 minutes of screen time. What I haven’t yet worked out, is whether we actually can conclude to answer these questions. And if we can’t? Well, is that entirely the point?

                  The narrative pessimistically questions the honesty of marriage and the honesty of ourselves as individuals whilst unraveling the darkly cryptic plot in a stylish, contemporary, neo-noir thriller. We are jumped backwards to the day Amy Elliott-Dunne disappears and then back further to the moment the pair met, it is from here that we begin to hear the story through the journal of ‘reliable’ narrator Amy whilst still following the investigation through Nick. Fincher cleverly, intertwines these two versions of the same story with a feeling of incomplete truth and deception on both parts. Perhaps the dishonesty of the characters mirrors the idea that as individuals we try to meet the expectations of society and therefore constantly portraying ourselves as something we are not. 

                  Rosamund Pike shines in her role as Amy Elliott-Dunne. Her characters develops at a near perfect rate. Playing the romanced girlfriend through to wife, right through to revenge driven sociopath, without ever giving away too much at once. We see Ben Affleck in one of his stronger roles. He gives a good performance, presenting just enough emotion, whilst subtly concealing a secret we eventually come to discover.

                  There are occasional moments in this film that seem like ‘fillers’. One such moment is the appearance of Desi (Neil Patrick Harris - unusual casting choice?) at an event held for Amy’s disappearance. We’ve already learnt that he allegedly stalked Amy after they broke-up a few years before she met Nick. He appears in the room wearing a pair of sunglasses, keeping his head down, obviously we are now suspicious. Nick recognizes him from the photo shown earlier and follows him out of the building, of course he doesn’t catch up with him and so we are left to ponder when he may appear again. And that is sole reason for the addition of this scene. In truth, its add nothing to the narrative, we can already assume he will make a later appearance given the emphasis put upon us learning of his existence in the first place. The sunglasses we’re just too clichéd. The obvious attempts at pointing this out to the oblivious members of the audience seem to me, a little unnecessary.

                  The themes of the narrative generate genuine interest and thought. There has been a lot of discussion surrounding this film regarding female representation. A high percentage of the cast are occupied by woman, this in itself defies the norm (supposedly only 30% of speaking characters in film are woman). The film puts woman into a strong position. A female lead detective in the police force, Amy is clearly a controlling character and is constantly framed in such a way. Even down to Margo (Nick’s sister), someone Nick goes to for advice. In the same instance however, the police offer doesn’t necessarily do a great job in her investigation, a female tv presenter is presented as discernibly unlikeable character and Amy developed into a deranged, deceitful character . Hardly any positivity there. The men in the film may not be on quite the same scale but they aren’t necessarily set in better light than the woman either. Nick, though he is not a ‘bad guy’, still cheats on his wife and goes out of his way conceal his affair. Tanner Bolt, Nick’s lawyer, is learned in the art deceit and knows exactly how to play the public in order to change their view on him. So regardless of gender (or any other difference for that matter), are we not all flawed simply for being human?

                  While this meticulous narrative is well played out in style and structure, I can’t help but feel the flaws to finale let it down just slightly. It feels rushed in comparison to the well thought out first 2 acts, the final part tries to answer too many questions and round off too many plot points to really achieve either of these. Don’t misunderstand me, I was in no way expectant of a happily ever after or even a unhappily ever after but I did expect a little more than we got. After all, in what world can a deceitful murderer go on in major public spotlight and not have any kind of investigation against her? Perhaps I'm over-thinking it or just being plainly pedantic. Its interesting themes and social comment make it a great point for thought and as always Fincher, accomplishes a polished piece of work that keeps your attention, which in the end glosses over it's minor faults. The film kept me thinking for more than a few hours after I saw it and that for me, is what a film should do.

Autumn

You can find the most beautiful places right on your door step. I took this picture in the park right at the end of my road.

A visit from Prince Edward

I spent this afternoon photographing a visit made to the college I work at by Prince Edward. Not an everyday occurrence! 

Palo Alto

Palo Alto 2013



Directed by Gia Coppola and adapted from James Franco's stories of the same name, Palo Alto is a 'coming of age' drama packed full of teenage angst. It comes dangerously close to average, sticking with the same themes that every film of this genre does: completely absurd house parties, misplaced trust, love, drinking and smoking (in this case every character smokes like chimney for reason unknown.)

However, I think Ms Coppola (that is a relation to the Francis-Ford and Sofia variety of Coppola's) does a fine job of avoiding the mediocre, she uses the conventional themes but plays them out in a more low key tone instead of an over the top, exaggerated style. There isn't necessarily a massive climax to this film, so don't expect a meticulously written plot. The narrative simply occurs, it unfolds with with a certain subtlety that works perfectly along side the gentle camera work and shallow depth of focus. Many of the plot points feel almost brushed over, as though the need more attention and more depth but in the end this works with for the film, it creates a realism that can often be lost in this genre of movie. The played down style Gia Coppola adopts is consistent through every aspect of the film. Though, I could certainly live without single shots of splattered milkshake and dead plants, I'm not overly sure of what these add the film but neither do they detract from anything.

As ever, the adult figures in this movie are almost completely non-existent and the small few that do appear are typically terrible role models. The mother figure comes across as emotionless and shallow while she feigns caring by repeatedly asking her daughter if she is depressed. Even with the addition of the 'I love you's, this half hearted attempt at caring is a lost effort on her part. The stoner step-father is completely absurd and personally I feel a little unnecessary. Yes, adults and youths have difficulty understanding one another but much to the disappointment of film makers and story tellers, they aren't all completely useless. As for the careers councillor? Well, an office full of dead plants aside, she hardly made April (Emma Roberts - niece of Julia Roberts) feel better. This is a far more reasonable representation of adulthood. Repeatedly, she asks April 'What she wants to do?' subsequently leading to April running off to the toilets crying. Where her 'friends' are begin their usual shallow, self involved selves.

April's angst is not helped by Mr B (James Franco's character), her football coach. His long staring smiles at April, which are made a point of with slightly extended cuts are, quite simply, uncomfortable. When he eventually tries to kiss her she is completely taken in by him, we do not need to guess how this plot line will unfold. Its not long before we discover he is manipulative and has a taste for other young girls. Though April (Emma Roberts) appears to be considered the main character, for me, it Jack Kilmer's (Yes, Val Kilmer's Son - they really do keep in the the family with this film.) character Teddy that takes the lead here.  He is the stereotyped 'good at heart' character but he does it well, especially when considering this is his first feature film.  Seemingly working under the influence of awful Fred (Nat Watt), Teddy gets himself into trouble after a car accident he causes when driving under the influence. At the same time he struggles to find a good time to express to April how he feels about her.


All round this is a well made film. The for the most part the characters are likeable. With the expection of sleazy Mr B and frustrating Fred, though excellent characters, 'likeable' is not the word for them. Gia Coppola does a great job of re-creating Franco's stories into a beautiful film, and achieves an air of realism that few films manage when trying to portray this subject. Despite the stereotype character list and not so unusual themes, both writer and director do justice to a story everyone can relate to. Coppola encapsulates the perfect amount of awkwardness and beauty that comes with the teenage life. One thing that has been bugging is the relevance of the title. Of course I realise that it is a reference to the setting but we hardly see any of Palo Alto and focus solely on the lives of the characters without the reference or context to its setting. So why title it with focus on the place? Something to ponder during a second viewing I think.