Review - Boyhood

Boyhood is one of those films which showcase life in front of you. Its brilliant.

 

Richard Linklater is a very different director. His work is, at many times, highly intricate portray of human lives. His work is subtle, often slow but always affecting. So when he makes a film spanning over 12 years and shot over 12 years about a boy growing up - you know it is going to be very personal, special piece of work which will present some great reflections on - well, childhood to boyhood.

So Boyhood is indeed all of this. Even though I am writing this review being an Indian, and Boyhood is quintessential American film, the film is remarkably true to universal nature of growing up. It stars Ellar Coltrane as Mason, initially as a six-year old boy, to all the way upto age 18. The film starts sometime in 2002. Mason lives with her single parent mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette) and elder sister Samantha. Their father Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke), sees them on weekends and holidays. Over the entire runtime of over 2 and a half hours, the film presents Mason's journey from a fragile 6 year old to a determined 18 year old. And what an amazing journey it is.

The script is wonderfully written - it actually gives all the major event references of respective time frame. Mason is shown playing on a Game Boy Advance early on, going for mid-night release of Half-Blood Prince. As time moves, he and his sister grow - the film references to presidential elections, Iraq War. As the film draws to closure, we even catch references to Lady Gaga, Twilight and Facebook. The character development is so detailed that the film doesn't feels like a "shot and acted" production - its more like peeking through someone's life - his family, his friends. The relationships are so well portrayed that they never feel over-dramatic even for a single instance. It is even more astounding that Linklater had only beginning and ending of the film in mind when he started writing/directing in 2002. He developed the entire script each year, by revising what they have shot previously and taking it forward. And yet, the end-product never feels "stiched together". The narration flows organically without any bumps over its entire duration.

Acting is natural. That is what I can say about the cast of Boyhood. Ellar Coltrane and Patricia Arquette in particular, are so real in their emotions and actions that they elevate the film to what the film has become. Every actor in this film - let it be Patricia's exes, Mason Sr's new wife or her parents, Mason's girlfriend Sheena, Mason's friends or even a plumber guy in a small scene is natural - the film is full of wonderful characters, some of them may remind you of someone from your own life.

It is rather rare to find a film with flesh and blood characters and real narrative these days. What Linklater has achieved - it could be labelled difficult (or easy, given the fact that they had so much time) - is remarkable. Holding on to the faith of completing a film in 12-years alone requires applause. It started as an experiment many years ago and the result of perseverance of a film-maker has resulted in a gem. You may call it slow or even without story - but that's magic of this film- it moves you without story. It may be sequence of events and dynamics of relationships. But that's life. So Boyhood is 12-year snapshot of life. 

4/5

Review - The Imitation Game

This film is not a just a film with great performances - it is the great film overall. Thrilling, suspenseful, entertaining - what else you wish?

The Weinstein Company's this year Oscar juggernaut is surprisingly is not a mere Oscar bait, but it is actually a very good film. The Imitation Game, directed by Morten Tyldum (known for BAFTA-nominated Headhunters) is an entertaining, highly involving film which is supported by all-round great acting and well-balanced script. 

Alan Turing, known for his great contribution to computers and cryptography, played by Benedict Cumberbach. The film primarily focuses on Turing's endeavor to crack Nazi's enigma code. During the World War 2, Nazi Germany was using a highly advanced encryption for their radio messages, generated by a curious electro-mechanical machine, called Enigma. Allies got hold of this machine, but were not able to decrypt any of the signals because the machine had millions of settings and Germans changed their decryption setting everyday. So obviously British military and MI6 required code-breakers and mathematicians for this secret task - to break the enigma. Turing, having a respectable résumé, takes the job, along with his team consisting of a bunch of men and a woman too.

This woman, Joane Clarke, played wonderfully by Keira Knightley, develops an immediate fondness for Turing. Turing is rather an arrogant narcissist on surface. The film accounts this to his tormented childhood - his peculiar interests and school bullying. Turing retreated more and more into this personal shell and became more inaccessible. All of the other colleagues on the mission dislike him but only Joane understood Turing and his emotions. 

Over the less than two hours of the film's runtime, the film provides layered characterization for most of its characters - not only Turing, but also Joane, mission partners Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode),
John Cairncross (Allen Leech) and MI6 head Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong). The script is very well written - the storyline never becomes stretched or dull in its entire length, which usually is the case with biopics.

Cumberbatch gives an extra-ordinary performance here - it is restrained and never showy. It is always easy to act loud and shout to make an impression, but subtle performances are very hard to pull off. And Cumberbatch did it with a great conviction. His scene with Keira near the end are heartbreaking - "I don't want to be alone." Keira Knightley provides an effective support to Cumberbatch performance, which actually defines the supporting actor role.

Alexandre Desplat's music has worked amazingly well onscreen. His scores always underlines a given scene and are never obtrusive, and yet you always hum his themes when you step outside the theater. He never ceases to amaze me with his work, such a large body of work. The production design is also worth a mention, the WWII era is well depicted along with all the machines and war-era London.

The homosexual element is underplayed, but is not written off. In fact, the injustice done to a brilliant man who helped saving thousand of lives is the integral theme of this film. The Imitation Game is amongst this year's best. Cumberbatch brings his heart and soul to his very fine film.

4/5

Review - Theory of Everything

Eddie Redmayne's masterful performance makes The Theory of Everything worth a watch.

Made for each other...

 

Documentary filmmaker James Marsh's biopic The Theory of Everything is an elegant, polished production, with heartfelt performances by Eddie Redmayne as theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Felicity Jones as his wife, Jane. The film focuses primarily on Hawking's relationship with his wife during his 30-year old marriage. 

The film starts with Hawking's years at Cambridge, where he is enrolled for Ph.D. He is a shy and an introvert fellow but obviously, has brilliant mind. During a party he meets Jane, who is studying arts. Jane is devout Catholic. Hawking is an atheist. She studies poetry and language, he studies black holes. Opposites attract, they say. And so they marry. Meanwhile, Stephen is diagnosed with motor neuron disease, which is destroying his neurons and leaving him paralytic every passing day. He's got only two years, the doctors say.

However, it turns out that doctors are wrong - Jane becomes Stephen's primary caretaker after marriage, while he discovers the vast secrets of the universe. His brain, ever racing, but his body denying everything. Jane stays with Stephen, gives birth to his three children, along taking care of him. But it is not as easy as it seems - the ever increasing responsibilities add extra burden on Jane's shoulders over the years.

The script by Anthony McCarten (also one of the producers), largely focuses on Stephen and Jane, but skims through the marvelous and ingenious work that Stephen has done. While at many times, I strongly felt that the film demanded more of Stephen's work to be presented onscreen, the storyline here is rather dull and formulaic. It proceeds like any other biopic about suffering genius and selfless wife (yes, it does somehow reminds me of A Beautiful Mind.) Also, there is hardly any conflict in relationship so to say. Everyone is nice, decent and composed. No one snaps. It is worth mentioning that the film is a based on a more recent memoir by Jane, which has skipped or positively transformed any arguments or clashes between her husband and herself, which were evident in her earlier memoir post divorce.

But what holds the fort here is outstanding performance by Eddie Redmayne - his physical transformation is worth thousand accolades. What is even more astonishing is that when his character looses his voice after the first half, his face - even with a smallest move - says so much. He not only looked like Stephen Hawking, he talked, walked and expressed like Hawking - or even better then him. That's a wonderful performance. Felicity Jones also leaves an impression, playing the good, helpful wife, but she was towered by Redmayne most of the time. 

Technically the film is extremely well-made, the cinematography is bright and vibrant and has fantasy-like feel to it and like all period films, is too polished. Music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is lovely and touching. It resembles works of Abel Korzeniowski and Shigeru Umebayashi, in a good way ofcourse.

The Theory of Everything is not a brilliant film by any means. It is, however, definitely worth a watch. It does gives some insight, no matter how fleeting, into the genious mind of Stephen Hawking. The marriage and relationship with his wife may feel a bit "made-up" and false, but there is no denying that Hawking could not have achieved great milestones without help and support of Jane. And there is bravo performance by Redmayne, who should win an Academy Award for his outstanding work.

3/5, 0.5 for performances - 3.5/5

Review - Birdman, Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Birdman's a strange bird of Hollywood in recent times - it successfully blends dark comedy and psychological drama in same film.

Hollywood has some strange obsession with obsessive, twisted and deluded artists. Sunset Boulevard, Opening Night or even recently, Black Swan are some of the examples. Enter Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman, whose central character has to prove that he is capable of doing not only pop-corn superhero flicks, but also complex artistic work as well.

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is an American actor in his early fifties, whose career is pretty much done. He starred in highly successful "Birdman" superhero films, but due to his own personal choice, he refused to do further sequels way back some decades. Now, in hopes of rebuilding his career, he stages an adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story "What we talk about when we talk about love", in which he is all set to play a character and direct as well. Ambious.

Of course it is not as easy as it seems - he has some serious issues with casting. He replaces the male lead, by a narcissist, but outstanding method-actor Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), who makes his life no easy. He has an affair with co-actor Laura and she is pregnant. Her daughter Sam (Emma Stone) has just came back from rehab and Riggan needs to be there for her too. Her ex-wife expects a lot from him. He is facing legal issues with an ex-cast member too. Maybe that was not enough, he is also self-delusional - he thinks that he has telekinetic powers and he can fly. Levitate. Save the world. Birdman's voice is in his head - he says things, a lot of them to Riggin. And yup, there is a snooty critic too, who is going to write a pretty bad review by all means. Reason? She hates Riggin. As the opening night nears, Riggin goes more and more into the psychological turmoil. Will he be able to perform good?

Although all of this may sound hotchpotch, but I don't know how, but Iñárritu along with his three more writers has successfully translated it on screen. And in a single shot no less, more on that a bit later. The film poses some obvious questions about popular culture - the role of critics, success of no-brainer films, social media, artistic merits and so on. Along the way there are some really funny moments - one scene involves Riggin maneuvering through late-evening Times Square in white underwear is a highlight.

Acting is all-around outstanding. Michael Keaton is tailor fit for this role. As many of you may know, he did played Batman in late 1980's, way before Nolan's version came. Funnily enough, Birdman also has Batman-esque voice. Keaton's work here is outstanding - even on stage, where he is supposed to "act" as if he is in a play, his shows wide range of emotions. Norton's performance is equally great - there is a scene involving his character on stage early in the film which is downright hilarious. Emma Stone has never been so good. We also have Naomi Watts here (and a surprise lesbian kissing too, unwarranted). The overall tone of acting by everyone here is a bit hammy, but that's how it is supposed to be.

And now the single-shot thing. The whole film is shot (or lets say edited/computer manipulated) in such a way that the most of its 2-hour duration feels like a single, continuous long shot. Cinematographer here, no guesses required, is the brilliant as ever Emmanuel Lubezki, who won Oscar last year. When you see it, the camera work sucks you right into the film. It is sometimes obtrusive, but it does sets the mood and atmosphere of the theater backstage so well that you feel that you are walking around these characters. Editing also requires a special mention because to seamlessly combine many shots into a single one requires great hard work. Only thing which does not works here is the background score - which does not fits well into the film.

Birdman, however, left me a bit unsatisfied. There is something missing. Maybe its theme, obsession to prove your work, is done may times before. The atmosphere of the film however, leaves a great impact on you. The narrow corridors backstage, the make-up rooms, rooftops and Times Square at night - Birdman is a visual delight. By the very end,  the film has wonders here and there. It is one of the very good films of the year.

4/5