12 Years a Slave and Selma: A Pictorial Comparison

Why was 12 Years a Slave more successful with the mainstream than Selma?

12 Years a Slave

Selma

12 Years a Slave

Selma

12 Years a Slave

Selma

12 Years a Slave

Selma

12 Years a Slave

Selma

Weakness                                                                                                               Leadership

White Humanity                                                                                                   As Equals

Isolation                                                                                                                Power

Fields                                                                                                                     The Bridge

Lined-Up                                                                                                                Lining-Up

And for the record, I believe 12 Years a Slave is the better film...

Jia Zhangke, A Touch of Sin, and the Use of Animals to Represent Corruption.

Jia Zhangke’s newest feature, A Touch of Sin, is a giant departure from his more neo-realist inspired films. A Touch of Sin has been compared to the work of Quentin Tarantino and Johnnie To, often using violence for symbolic meaning. However violence towards animals specifically is a reoccurring motif, bypassing that would be ignoring an important message in Zhangke’s feature.

Zhangke uses violence throughout towards animals and humans interchangeably. Violence against both is used by those who have lost hope within China’s new found wealth, and is seen as their only means to regain any sort of control. We are repeatedly shown that when people have been reduced to their weakest point, lashing out seems the only logical response. This is most clearly portrayed in the opening section of A Touch of Sin.  Dahai (Wu Jiang)is a man who has lost faith with trying to do things fairly, and instead lashes out in a rage of gunfire. Dahai however, doesn’t just shoot those who have become corrupt and have taken advantage of the locals, he also kills an average man who we are shown has relentlessly been whipping his horse. We can assume this man is whipping the horse due to this his frustration at, perhaps, his only source of income, one that has become tired, and old. He knows that if the horse gives up, he is left hopeless in a country that has developed too rapidly for him and is quickly leaving him behind. The man has been left with nothing but this last resort, to let out his frustrations with violence, even though he is surely aware this will only exacerbate the problem. He has become part of the cycle of corruption and violence through no fault of his own, with Zhangke suggesting that corruption and violence are two of the same thing. As Dahai is attempting to rid the whole area of this corruption/violence, and placing the innocent first, this man becomes a victim of Dahai’s rage.  Dahai is aware of the corruption that happens around, and with being aware of this, as well at the fact that he has lost faith in the government, accepts the fact that he must resort to killing. Dahai however ensures that he will instead use this in order to defend the innocent, both human and animal. With Dahai killing this man, a person who could be seen as a symbolic representation of a man attempting to reassert dominance over an ‘inferior’ creature, Dahai takes upon a duel role, where he becomes the symbolic revenge of those who have fallen victim of an abusive, corrupt government for both humans and animals. Dahai (a character that could be seen as Zhengke’s release of his own frustrations with the government) sees the abuse of power not only in those who take advantage of humans, but also those who take advantage of animals. By wrapping his gun with the image of a tiger, he has symbolically become a defender of both the down-trodden human and animal, and given power back to both. Both gun and tiger are, after all, seen as the most powerful weapon for mankind, and most powerful creature in the animal kingdom.

The image of whipping is repeated later on in the film, where Xiao Yu (Zhao Tao) is beaten in the same manner, this time however with wads of cash. This far more explicate use of symbolism shows Zhangke’s belief that money has become the dominate force in modern China, and this has lead to the abuse of power. By repeating the image of the beating of the horse, this time on Xiao Yu, Zhangke lays the abusive nature of the Communist Party as not being mutually exclusive to just humans or animals. Zhangke see’s the rise of importance of money, and the governments shift towards capitalism as being the key reason why rural China has seen itself left behind the urban, increasingly cosmopolitan sprawls that the cities have become. Money, for Zhangke, has become a weapon as powerful as the gun, or the tiger.

Corruption has become intertwined with violence for Zhangke, and A Touch of Sin shows how quickly this has gone out of control. By using the basis of real stories found on Weibo, Zhangke stitched together stories the breadth of the country in order to reinforce this belief, and to demonstrate the far-reaching impacts that the dramatic reforms made by the Chinese government have had on the average citizen, and to attempt to demonstrate why a rise in extremely violent crime has recently become an important talking point in Chinese social media.

Under The Skin and Cinematic language

Under The Skin (2013) has been met with such a wide range of opinions, from disgust to amazement, that it is almost impossible not become intrigue by what you will see once you take your seat. Under The Skin, for me, is simply one of, if not the, best film made by a British director.

Under The Skin maintains a sense of transparency and opaqueness, letting you get close, inviting the cliché that it gets ‘under the skin of the audience’, while also refusing to be easily defined. Glazer clearly understands cinematic language, and knows how to play with it. Glazer’s previous film, Birth (2004), is full of audience manipulation, making you believe the impossible, letting it and wanting it to convince you, before revealing the mundane fact that it is exactly what it seems like. However Under The Skin sees Glazer creating new ways of using film, creating new ways to use language, which goes some way to explaining how some have been so incredibly repulsed by the film.

 Visually Glazer is willing to experiment more than most, layering images upon each other for symbolism. At one stage, Johansson is shown beneath a collection of images with a yellowy hue. As images flash by, melt into each other, drift out of the screen, we are seeing how Johansson sees the world, a confusing mix of flashes. Never has Earth seemed so alien. We can barely understand what we are being shown, and nor can Johansson. We later get a more defined image layered image, Johansson sleeping in an ocean of trees. It provides a strange, startling image as Johansson slowly melts into the image of the forest. Glazer could have left us with the image of her asleep in the cabin, however Glazer chooses something far more alien, something that not only shows her asleep, but connotes a whole host of simultaneous meanings. Does it mean she is starting to understand and become part of Earth as the image literally shows us? Or is it saying the opposite, that the fact she is looks so strange that she could never be part of this world? We have seen how she has struggled to assimilate with humans, and her strangely floating in the forest seems to symbolise something similar. I would go with the latter, but there is an interesting case for both, especially in light of the ending.

During the first half of the film, some of the most creative set-pieces involve men Johansson has picked up being drawn into the black ectoplasm. Watching the men sink into it, only for Johansson to walk back over it moments after are powerful images, but the moments prior to these events are perhaps just as interesting. A lot of the first half of the film involves people watching from her white van. Her inviting men into her van, men who had no idea they were even being filmed. Glazer has purposefully flipped the infamous ‘male gaze’ here. The men are completely objectified by Johansson, they have one purpose only for her, and she will spend hours just watching, hunting around, to find the right man. Johansson becomes an incredibly powerful creature, partly sexually, partly for her otherworldliness. When the men are instead ‘gazing’ at her (one man with a fully erect penis), they literally walk straight into their death without even noticing. There is no struggle, no fight, just the inevitable sinking into blackness. Their gaze is made impotent, so hollow that they eventually become just skin floating around in the ectoplasm. This intentional change of gaze again may explain why many critics have perhaps felt uncomfortable watching Under The Skin, with male critics suddenly finding themselves the objectified, rather than the one objectifying. It is, after all, more fun watching, than being watched.

A slightly more traditional, but just as creative sequence is during the ‘creation process’ during the opening. The opening is comparable to scenes in The Tree of Life (2011) creation sequence, or the Star Child in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). We are shown confusing images of things we can only assume are parts of DNA or blood cells floating and merging, creating Johansson into the alien being that she is. Images quickly shift from CGI images into an extreme close-up of an eyeball, the process of creation being completed at that moment. As well as these images, we hear her practicing sounds, words, in order to complete her transformation. We are left to piece together the meanings of these images and sounds, as it is not clearly explained at all, with only the harsh-cut to the eyeball giving any form of explanation. Glazer is brave enough to throw the audience into the deep-end straight away, throwing in questions a load of existentialist questions from the first moment about what it means to be human. Throwing these questions straight at the audience right at the start is bound to put people off, but it sets up an incredibly deep and unique film, full of images and sounds that will haunt of days.

Anti-War films and The Wolf of Wall Street

After reading the fantastically written and studied article by Tyler Sage on BrightLights Film about The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), and if it condemns or promotes the rash behaviour of its protagonists, I couldn't help wonder about the comparison used by him in regards to anti-war films. He lists a number of films that are supposedly ‘anti-war’, focusing on Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). It discusses the idea that by demonstrating war in itself, they are in essence glorifying it, no matter how brutal the images that are shown are. He pulls an example from Tony Swofford and how these films demonstrate the ‘magic brutality’ of war. Sage extends this to The Wolf of Wall Street where the ‘magic of excess’ is shown. In simple terms, how can it be ‘anti-anything’, when it looks so great and is so much fun to watch?

However, it seems to me that Sage, as well as Swofford are aware that this is not always the case. Sage quotes Swofford in his memoir, Jarhead,

 "Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in Omaha or San Francisco or Manhattan . . . watch the films and weep and decide once and for all that war is inhuman and terrible," while at the same time, "Corporal Johnson at Camp Pendleton and Sergeant Johnson at Travis Air Force base . . . and Lance Corporal Swofford at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base watch the same films and are excited by them, because the magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of their fighting skills."

Swofford acknowledges the paradox of this (and films in general), in that two people can watch the same film and get two different versions. Whereas as one is repulsed by the images, someone else is just as likely to find it exciting and wish to replicate. You are just as likely to be for it, as against it.

I do feel that there are films that are generally seen as ‘anti-war’, but become explicitly ‘pro-war’ by demonstrating it as glorious and heroic. Saving Private Ryan (1998) is perhaps the best example of this, with its infamous extended opening on the beaches. Spielberg shows the brutality, but shows it as heroic, as ‘us vs. them’, ‘good vs. bad’. It’s almost impossible not to want to join those men on the beaches. This, for me, makes it a failure in its aims. In contrast, a film from the same year, The Thin Red Line (1998), is able to show the brutality of war, without giving into the same traps as Saving Private Ryan. We instead see the inner-conflict within those taking part, and how it destroys them, as well as everything around them. These are what separates good cinema from bad cinema, intending to send a message, and sending it in a clear and correct manner. Saving Private Ryan by sticking to structure muddles its message, whereas The Thin Red Line by using muddling voiceovers and scenes has a clear and structured messaged. War will always be controversial and provoke innate response both for and against it, and money (and therefore power) provokes the same kind of extreme reactions.

The Wolf of Wall Street completes a trio of films from 2013 that deal with excessive natures (specifically of that in America), and how money corrupts. The Bling Ring and Pain and Gain look at this in contrasting ways, with Pain and Gain being more along the same lines as The Wolf of Wall Street in its chaotic nature, matching its extreme topic with extreme displays on-screen. All three have been met with mixed responses in a certain manner, suggesting similar conflicts with the audience when discussing greed. The Wolf of Wall Street examines corruption at its most extreme and ugliness. The Wolf of Wall Street is played for laughs, Jordan Belfort is such a disgusting person, and with Scorsese ramping everything up, it’s almost impossible not to see the humour involved. We are shown the absolutely ridiculousness of these men who can get whatever they want, but we are always laughing at them, not with them. These are terrible people who are guilty of greed at its most extreme. Scenes of Di Caprio crawling to his car are incredibly well done and made, but who truly wants to be in that state? Criticising the ending, questioning if Belfort ‘got what he deserved’ seem even stranger. Well the answer is obvious, he didn't, but do any of these men, both then, and now get what they deserve for exploitation? Scorsese shows us what is wrong with capitalism, where a person can get off with mass-fraud with limited punishment, in a fairly comfortable environment. By making the film into almost a farce, Scorsese however makes this idea more accessible than perhaps other attempts to demonstrate the same idea in a more obvious way. Many reviewers seem to be struggle with the blurring of lines between enjoying and appreciating the film, but not agreeing with the characters actions. By enjoying (or not enjoying) you are not agreeing (or disagreeing) with what a film is saying. Criticising 12 Years a Slave (2013) for poorly sending its message does not mean you condone slavery, nor does enjoying The Wolf of Wall Street mean you like Jordan Belfort.

Where I do feel The Wolf of Wall Street does let itself down is in terms of its near complete dismissal of women. Its main female roles are purely sex objects, and the surrounding roles are often objectified. The clearest example of this is during one of Belfort’s speeches, in which he points out a female member of staff who had been in the company since the start. However this is the first time we have seen her, or even mentioned. She is wholly ignored, perhaps because Scorsese felt that women had no place within this pumped up environment. Does this however make the film sexiest? Again, no, but it does give it a massive blind spot that needs to be addressed by film critics when discussing the film.

Or, perhaps I am just a greedy sexiest pig, because I loved every moment of The Wolf of Wall Street.

End of 2013 - Top Ten

Here is the most important Top Ten of 2013...

For a longer list of the films I have seen in 2013, follow the link at http://mubi.com/lists/films-of-2013--6

10. The Bling Ring

Sofia Coppola’s film has been almost forgotten since it debuted in the Un Cert Regard section of Cannes, despite having the big calling card of Emma Watson involved. Coppola has fallen out of favour it seems with critics, which has meant her last two features have been largely ignored. The Bling Ring however looks at extreme celebrity fandom while remaining playful and funny. She also extracts strong performances all-round. Hopefully The Bling Ring will pick up some reconsideration over time.

9. A Field in England

Ben Wheatley’s mixture of hallucinogenics and 16^th century England created more of a stir for its simultaneous release in cinemas, VOD and DVD on the same day. A Field in England however is a crazy puzzle of a film that never reveals itself too much to the audience. The magic mushroom scene is one of the best moments of 2013 cinema. Wheatley is a unique figure in British cinema.

8. Blue is the Warmest Colour

Despite the backlash after its Palme D’or win, Blue is the Warmest Colour remains a powerful no holding back feature on how love comes and goes. Held together by two fantastic leading performances, which Kechiche allows to flourish by using constant close-ups of both Exarchopoulos and Seydoux.

7. Computer Chess

Perhaps the weirdest movie of 2013, Andrew Bujalski has more than cemented his place as a leading figure in independent film making. Computer Chess is a massive leap forward from his original films, and has created a film that is simultaneously nostalgic and futuristic. Computer Chess never allows you to settle, right up until the very final seconds.

6. The Worlds End

Edgar Wright has rounded up the Cornetto Trilogy with the best British film of the year. Wright balances between being constantly funny, and relevant to the issue of commercialisation and globalisation. Wright makes it look extremely easy to do so and elevates a film into become an important piece of work.

5. Blue Jasmine

Blue Jasmine holds back nothing in its portrayal of depression, and both Woody Allen and Cate Blanchett deserve equal praise for their work. Allen plays against the comedic expectations that follow him extremely well, when scenes that could have easily have been funny, instead become traumatic to watch.

4. Upstream Colour

It took 9 years, but Upstream Colour is the follow-up that has more than matched the expectations that followed Shane Carruth after his début feature, Primer. Carruth comfortably floats between symbolism and fragments of stories that always just seem out of reach. We are never left completely behind with the story, yet always one step behind. An extremely hard thing to do, but Carruth does it with ease.

3. Before Midnight

Another conclusion to a trilogy, Before Midnight looks simple, but is so full of tiny details that will keep giving more on each viewing. The long walks and conversations remain true and honest, displaying everything out in the open. Hard to ask for more.

2. The Great Beauty

Extremely fun, extremely beautiful and extremely watchable. Sorrentino makes 150mins seem like a quick breeze as we are allowed access to the Bunga-Bunga parties in Italy, and all of the high-life that comes with it. Sorrentino freely flows around the streets of Rome with such ease, it is almost impossible not to be drawn into its seductive nature.

1. Gravity

Just what you want to see from an extremely high-budget film from Hollywood. The technical achievements are clear to see, the long takes that require an incredible amount of pre-planning. However Gravity is more than just a little bit of showing off. It taps into fears of death, isolation, rebirth, nature, evaluation and survival, all in 90 minutes. The recycling of high budget, hollow comic-book films with little redeeming value is put to shame by the work of Cuaron and Lubezki.

End of 2013 - Surprises and Disappointments

2013 is coming to a close, and therefore the end of year lists start. It is almost unfair for me to do so, as I don’t have the luck of being able to see many films that have yet to be released in the UK, or any screener copies. So this list will be updating and changing throughout the next few years. However, I will be uploading my current 2013 top ten, alongside a few comments about why the film is among the best of the year. There are also some films that cropped up on end of year lists for others, due to them getting wide releases in 2013, despite premiers in 2012. For ease, I will just be sticking to films that have been released in 2013 according to IMDB (meaning the exclusion of some fantastic films, such as Wadjda and Shady)

However, for now, I will mention a few films that have surprised, and disappointed me over the last year for varying reasons.

SURPRISES

The Purge

Perhaps the biggest surprise for me this year was The Purge directed by James DeMonaco. DeMonaco uses a simple plot device, what if we were allowed to do anything for 24 hours once a year without any repercussions, and uses it as an examination of the privileged. DeMonaco attacks white middle-class culture and its demonisation of the poor. The Purge that comes into place once a year is inevitably used to kill those who ‘suck off the rich’, who have ‘no re-deeming value’ to society. However, when the rich neighbours start to mistrust and attack each other, do they begin to see the absurd nature of this attitude. By the end, I was left wondering how this film had received such a negative response by nearly all film critics. Too close to the bone? While watching I was reminded of Funny Games by Haneke. I wonder if Haneke had made the exact same film, would this be higher up on end of year lists?

White House Down

White House Down is cheesy, silly and thoughtless at times, but it never forgives to be aware of these faults without becoming too tacky. White House Down is most importantly funny, without ever trying too hard. Channing Tatum takes on the lead role with a mixture of seriousness and playfulness. Others may have leant too hard on one side of these, but Tatum straddles both fantastically well. Not many films have made me laugh out loud as much as White House Down this year.

World War Z

I loved the detail, and attention to detail that the book had. I was weary of the problems the film had in production, and weary of director Marc Forster, who although talented, sometimes becomes an overbearing figure on his films (see Stranger Than Fiction). World War Z is far from perfect, but despite going into the film worried it would be a total mess, I came out slightly relieved. The film almost ignores the book, however does this not mean it doesn't make for an interesting addition to the zombie cannon. I think this is where the problem laid for many fans, that the film wasn’t the book. But when taking on a book that goes into such detail, spanning many years, a two hour film will never do it justice. World War Z understood this. The directors of the French New Wave wanted its own cinema language, rather than just adaptations of literature, and in World War Z, we have a slightly warped version of how a book can be translated into cinema.

Pain and Gain

As is the case with many of these surprises for me, Pain and Gain was a victim of pre-judgement, this time due to its director Michael Bay. His films are easy to criticise as disposable and thoughtless, but with Pain and Gain, Bay remains at full-force, however perfectly matches the tone of this pumped-up and intense story. Bay still falls into many of his own traps, such as it being far too long than needed, but Pain and Gain is funny, as well as an interesting examination of the American Dream gone wrong.

DISAPPOINTMENTS

The Grandmaster

Wong kar-wai is fantastic, but The Grandmaster is a mess that could compare to his 2046 in terms of it being poorly pieced together. It is interesting, and it is beautifully pictured, but it is so hard to follow at times, that it’s easy to lose track of what has happened. This may be purely through the differences in culture, where in China the story is well known. However, for me (and seemingly for other non-Chinese audience goers), there needed to be more explaining. There are three versions of this film floating around, and the European cut has more explanation of the story to go with it, so he was clearly aware this may be a problem, but there just wasn’t enough.

Only God Forgives

The film was hammered when released at Cannes this year, perhaps a victim of expectations being too high after Drive (which I did really like). It has recently however been making something of a come-back, and has appeared in the Guardian top ten of the year (as well as plenty of worst films of 2013). However I found it to be soulless and void of anything. Despite the film only being around 85 minutes (and it did feel a lot longer), it felt stretched to breaking point, trying to extend the running time. For all of its beautiful shots, Refn seemed to have forgotten a story.

Key Films and Themes of 2013

It is nearly impossible to sum-up over-riding themes in a year of cinema, but its almost impossible to resist the temptation to do so. American cinema is nearly always the easiest to do so, due to the availability of such films, so I have attempted to place some re-occurring themes and matched them with corresponding films. I have also listed some key films from around the world that have either made an impact on cinema this year, or on me. This has meant some films mentioned I have not seen, but deserve to be mentioned due to their impact on others.

American cinema seems to have been mostly concerned with two, twinned themes. Isolation and Technology, and Inequality and Celebrity/Excess. These themes are unavoidable in modern day America, and therefore is of no surprise they have often cropped up. These themes have also been occasional supported by other key films from across the globe, but have been placed alongside American counterparts to support the idea.

Isolation

Upstream Color (Carruth)

Long anticipated second feature by Carruth. Represents isolation and connection through artificial means, all while only ever telling fragments of story at a time. Key American independent film.

Gravity (Cuaron)

Most clear-cut film about isolation, Gravity contrasts the vastness of space with the emotions of one human. Perfect blend of Hollywood scale and creativity.

Her (Jonze)

Leviathan (Castaing-Taylor and Paravel)

Technology

The Worlds End (Wright)

Last of the trilogy, The World’s End examines how technology and commercialisation is removing the heart and soul of the United Kingdom.

Computer Chess (Bujalski)

Incredibly creative, Bujalski’s latest feature looks at the fear of technology from the 80s, and how what seemed strange then, is beyond normal now. That’s all until the ending…

Inequality

Elysium (Blompkamp)

Not as great as District 9, but still able to present more challenging ideas than most Hollywood blockbusters would ever attempt to do. By taking on an extremely relevant subject matter in America right now, Blompkamp was always likely to split audiences. His vision however of the future is distinctive and beautiful. Both on Earth, and on Elysium.

The Purge (DeMonaco

Altogether ignored by critics, The Purge is an examination on white-middle class America, and how it demonises the poor. Unafraid to explore racism and prejudice. If Haneke made an American genre film.

12 Years a Slave (McQueen)

Captain Phillips (Greenway)

Fruitvale Station (Coogan)

The Immigrant (Gray)

Celebrity and Excess

The Great Beauty (Sorrantino)

Wondering and beautiful, The Great Beauty shows post-Bunga Bunga Italy. Shows the hollowness of extreme wealth.

The Bling Ring (Coppola)

Celebrity obsession. Coppola takes an interesting story and allows her actors the freedom to really embrace all of their silliness and contradictions. The American dream has become wanting more for nothing.

Pain and Gain (Bay)

Similar themes in Pain and Gain to The Bling Ring. Dismissed due to Bay being the director. Is funny, over the top, and slightly over-long, however does a fantastic job at showing how the American dream has become corrupted.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Scorsese)

The Lone Ranger (Verbinski)

A film not so much about excessiveness, but is the embodiment of the idea itself. Unfair criticism for the film damaged from start, but has already seen some retrospective consideration.

Key Asian

Wadjda (Al-Mansour)

Sold on the fact that it is the first Saudi film by a Woman, Wadjda has a lot more going for it than just that. Funny, and heartfelt.

Shady (Watanabe)

Biggest unknown, seen at the Raindance Film Festival. Completely sucks you in. The subtle tonal shifts throughout are incredibly done.

Stray Dogs (Ming-liang)

Like Father, Like Son (Koreeda)

A Touch of Sin (Zhengke)

The Act of Killing (Oppenheimer)

Topping a number of End of Year lists, The Act of Killing is perhaps the must-see documentary this year.

The Grandmaster (Kar-wai)

Blind Detective (To)

North/South America

La Reconstruccion (Taratuto)

An  Argentinian look at isolation, set in the deep cold South. The performance of Diego Peretti is a stand-out.

From Tuesday to Tuesday (Trivino)

Short Term 12 (Cretton)
Tom at the Farm (Dolan)

Prinsoners (Villeneueve)

Africa

Grigris (Haroun)

Although not as well received as previous effort, A Screaming Man, it is still of note due to the fact it is the only African film this year to break into the a main competition at this years festivals.

Mother of George (Dosunmu)

Europe

Blue is the Warmest Colour (Kechiche)

Beneath the controversy about the director/actress relationship, and the (shock horror) lesbian roles, Blue is the Warmest Colour is a perfectly pitched love/break-up story.

The Past (Farhadi)

Bastards (Denis)

Child’s Pose (Netzer)

Under the Skin (Glazer)

The Selfish Giant (Bernard)

The Double (Ayoade)

Ida (Pawlikowski)

Museum Hours (Cohen)