New Review: The Angel’s Share

What better time to kick-start my blog then the Diamond Jubilee? And who better to celebrate then the greatest British directors of all time? Ok, I’m not sure Ken Loach is a huge fan of Her Majesty, but this is a time for celebrating our love for the people of Britain, and Loach certainly has plenty of that to go around. Loach teams up with long term writing partner, the excellent Paul Laverty, for The Angel’s Share, a surprisingly upbeat look at the lives of a group of juvenile delinquents, completing community service for a variety of reasons- so far so miserable; but the film unfolds into a light-hearted tale of comradery- and perhaps one of the most impressive heists to be shown on screen in recent years.

Robbie, played by promising newcomer Paul Brannigan, wants to turn his life around for the sake of his unborn child. He is constantly in trouble for violent crimes, and has been warned by his partner that he risks losing everything if he doesnt straighten up. The problem is, with a huge scar on his face and a criminal record, the prospect of getting a job and staying out of trouble in a neglected area of Glasgow isn’t too promising. Luckily for Robbie, he finds a friend in community worker Harry,(played by the ever-brilliant Jon Henshaw) who sees potential him, and his curiously sharp whisky tasting skills. Robbie then uses his skills to mastermind that ‘one last job’, before heading along the straight and narrow.

The beauty of many of Loach’s films, and The Angel’s Share is no exception, is his ability to portray tragedy in such an unassuming way, that the viewer is almost unaware of their sympathies, right until they realise they’re cheering on the bad guy, or in this case, the misbehaving youth in a tracksuit. And it is through understanding this that the viewer can really understand the politics behind the film. The battle is not between Robbie and the wealthy whisky collectors of Scotland, but between the youth of Britain and those who are failing them. Those who are criticise the youth are really those who are partly responsible for their demise. The film, like many of his others, can be compared to De Sica’s Bicycle Theives- the tragedy is not in the stealing of the bike, but in the stealing of a man’s livelihood, and the loss of a man’s diginity, and the endless cycle that continues. The ending of the film is certainly far-fetched, but does Loach have to resort to fantasy in order for their to be a happy ending? Sadly, it does seem like the only option.

But it has to be said, as it is not said often enough, with the politics of The Angel’s Share , like much of Loach’s work, being at the core of the film, it can be easy to assume that the story is fogged by a need to get the point accross, but the film delivers a solid narrative, a flawless cast and, above all, a lot of laughs.

A Bloody Great Film- Alfie

I’m aware that so far, this blog has focussed quite heavily on modern British Cinema, but let’s face it- British Cinema has always been bloody great (…) and I think it’s time to rewind a little bit- you know what I mean?

Ok, time for a bit of context. It’s the ’60′s. It’s London. As we all know, a revolution was taking place. Everyone was either stoned out of their minds or swinging along in the coolest capital city in the universe… right? Ok, so it’s a beautiful dream, but as always, we can rely on cinema to bring us crashing back down to Earth. Enter Lewis Gilbert, with one of the finest films of the ’60′s era- Alfie.

Alfie (Michael Cane), a blonde eyed, beautiful Londoner has more than his fair share of the ladies and basically has a good time. he’s a happy-go-lucky kind of bloke, breaks a few hearts here and there but it’s alright. WRONG. You see, the problem with being young and carefree in the ’60′s was that you were inevitably bought up by parents who had you in the ’50′s, and therefore put their stifling,’you must get married and have babies and get a job and be a housewife’ selves upon you. And, as we learnt from ’50′s cinema, this makes for a lot of angry young men. But Alfie isn’t angry, he just doesn’t like all this being tied down malarcy, it makes a man all ponsified. That is , until, he has the luxury of being a part-time father taken away from him by Gilda (Julia Foster), our down-trodden female, who wants nothing more than to settle down with him, but has to settle down with a man she doesn’t love, but who provides her with security. What follows is the hilarious but simultaneously heart-breaking tale of a very confused young man who just wants to do what we wants without any hassle.

Now Alfie couldn’t really be played by anyone else (hear that Jude? NOBODY). Michael Cane, our loveable Londoner, all handsome and that, talks to us, makes us go weak in the knees, but is the epitome of oxymoron- utterly, utterly selfish and hateful but at the same time being loveable and hilarious. He serves as an allegory for the conflict between tradition and modernity at the time. Alfie has so many expectations to live up to, but all he really wants is to have a laugh- but he does this as the expense of several women (birds, it, whatever) who in turn are all tied down by the standards and lifestyle that they’re expected to meet, and therefore can never live up to the expectations of Alfie, who in turn can never really be happy for not meeting those expectations. It’s all a bit confusing.

Now it can’t go unmentioned of course that Gilbert himself went on to direct a couple of Bond films after the film, so one can be forgiven for perhaps thinknig that he is a chauvanistic pig, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Alfie’s perception of women is of course, disgusting and pathetic, but it’s important to note the extreme criticism that our character unashamedly brings upon himself with his behaviour. One scene where he slaps a hysterical woman (his friend’s wife) around the face after she suffers a break down due to a dodgy abortion she’s just had, is harrowing, made all the more shameful by his patheic attempt at redemption (slipping a few quid into her purse.) It’s easy to forget Alfie’s sins up to that point.

Because of the nature of Alfie’s character it’s hard, even in retrospect to truly understand what point the film is trying to make. Initially it can be seen as a criticism of outdated morals and values, but then Alfie remains unwanted and unhappy for rejecting them. ‘What’s it all about?’ Alfie asks us at the end. Indeed.

Great British Icons- Shane Meadows: 24 7: Twenty Four Seven

I remember the first time I watched Twenty Four Seven. I knew very little of Meadows’ work, and was yet to be fully appreciative of his unique style which I have come to love like no other. I remember coming away and really enjoying it. I’ve been singing it’s praise for years. But a recent re watch of this film gave me a very odd feeling, one that i’m not used to with Meadows- disappointment.

Now obviously the film is actually pretty bloody good. It has Bob Hoskins in it for a start so obviously it’s good. And the massively underrated Bruce Jones. Even James Corden turns up- (which is actually just strange).

The entire film actually feels almost like a homage to some of the great, early British Cinema (maybe with a bit of Raging Bull thrown in too.) The opening sequence is actually reminiscent of Housing Problems, one of the earlier British documentaries which serves as a commentary to the social housing issues of the time. As the film progresses, there’s also an edge of Reisz and Loach. But this is the fundamental problem. The only person who can ‘do’ Reisz is Reisz- the only person who can do Loach is Loach. Twenty Four Seven was Meadows’ second feature, so it is understandable that every filmmaker will obviously grow and experiment until they’ve found a style or a signature that they’re comfortable with, but it just seems so far away from his usual style that it’s almost impossible to label it as one of his. Even the heavily criticised Once Upon a Time in the Midlands (which I actually LIKED by the by) still had an element of his style- his quirky humour that defines him, his strong character-lead screenplays, but Twenty Four Seven just sticks out like a sore thumb.

It would also be impossible for me, as any one who has seen the film, not to mention the questionable acting that takes place from some of the actors. It’s a harsh reality, but it has to be said that no matter how amazing a script is, or the director, or the cinematography- bad acting is a HUGE killer. Even Hoskins, who is very charming and sweet and does put on a wonderful performance, can’t quite master the Northern accent and it is distracting. There are no Lols, no Shauns, no Richards, no Morells- that can be taken away from the film.

However, the film is not all lost. The soundtrack smacks of Meadows all over the cinematography is stunning (entirely black and white without being cheesy or distracting) and the story is genuinely touching if a little rushed. The film was very well received at the time and it’s certainly deserves the praise it received – but it wasn’t until later that Meadows really found his style- a style that now makes him one of the greatest directors of this generation- (I’m sorry, I just can’t end on a negative note).

Great British Icons- Shane Meadows: This Is England

It is near impossible to decide which is Meadows’ best film, though everyone has to have a favourite, and for this blogger, it has to be This Is England. What started off as a little film set in the early ’80′s has now expanded with two further TV series, following the lives of Lol, Woody, Shaun, Milky and the rest of the crew. The expansion of the film perhaps allows Meadows to develop much loved characters; for the audience however, it is a chance to delve further into the lives of those characters whose back story was just too great to be shown in one film.

The film centres mainly around the character of Shaun (Thomas Turgoose), a young boy whose quest for friendship an acceptance leads him to a group of skinheads, headed by Woody (Joe Gilgun). The group follow he fashion rather than the politics, and all goes smoothly until,fresh out of prison, Combo (Stephen Graham), a former friend of the gang returns with more than a chip on his shoulder.

As ever with Meadows, the outstanding casting is clear within the first 30 seconds. In swaggers Thomas Turgoose as Shaun, with a shit load of attitude despite the fact that his voice hasn’t even broken. His obvious naivety paired with his genuinely good heart and fearless cheek makes for an incredible lead. Yet it his naivety that brings home the true tragedy in the film. Shaun can pack a punch if he feels hurt but neglects to question people’s motives when he feels unsure, and the desperation as a viewer to protect him for inevitable harm is the crux of the film. Perhaps Meadows greatest talent is the ability to write the most complex of characters. Nearly all of his films show characters battling with a personal or moral conflict, yet somehow the viewer manages to avoid judgement. Combo, for example, is a brutish pitbull who could effortlessly tear your throat with his teeth, yet in some scenes the viewer almost feels pity for him- not in a preachy way, but in the genuine way that one human understands another.

Whilst it’s tempting (and entirely possible) to do a character analogy for all of the cast, one other point that must be made about the film is that Meadows manages to avoid any type of irritating political soap-boxing, which, in a film about racism, set in the Midlands in the ’80′s, is no easy task. For every criticism of Thatcher, there is a counter-extremist view, there are no lessons learned and nobody really wins.

This Is England was the film that really allowed Meadows to stand out as a Great British film director, and introduced us to some of the finest British acting talent of the modern day.

New Review: Dreams of a Life

Well it’s nearly Christmas- a time for, above many other things, spending time with your nearest and dearest. Even those who don’t live in the same area as their family, or don’t even like any of their family members, will find a special groups of friends- or one special person at least- to spend this festive holiday with. Even if the usual suspects are all busy, there would be somebody out there who would be willing to lay an extra place at their Christmas table for you… right? If, like me, your mother leaves 20 voicemails on your phone when you don’t answer after three rings, the following story may be hard to believe.

Joyce Vincent was found dead in a lonely bedsit in Wood Green- surrounded by ungiven Christmas presents. Her dead body lay undiscovered for three years. Yep, three years. She wasn’t a junkie or a prostitute, she had friends and a job- yet her corpse was found by a bailiff. The question remains in the minds of every single individual that has had the fortune of seeing this film- how on Earth did this happen?

Director Carol Morley explores the story with a mixture of ‘reconstructed imaginings’ (she doesn’t like the word ‘reconstructions’- long story but bang on the money) and talking head interviews by those that knew her. It was through talking to these people that Morley gathered and put together the story and formed an idea of who Joyce was before she died.

The story is perhaps so very powerful and resonating because it taps in to the most basic human fear- the fear of being forgotten, or of not being loved. Yet the remarkable thing about the film, and perhaps the biggest reward that can come out of the viewing, was that the film creates more questions than it answers. There is no resolution- not one thing you hear from the mouth of anyone is something you can be totally certain of, and so Joyce becomes almost a fictional character- a figment of everyone else’s imagination. The film has been compared to Clio Barnard’s ‘The Arbor’, because the film is as much about people’s recollection of a person than it is about the person themself. Everyone, including the viewer, draws a conclusion about who she was and what brought about her death, though the real tragedy is of course that there is no resolution, no possible comfort of knowing what really happened.

The film has is also similar to Morley’s film earlier film ‘The Alcohol Years’, where Morley interviews people who knew her in a stage of her life where she was lost in a boozy haze, a period that she has very little recollection of. But the catharsis that Morely must’ve felt when having these gaps filled in is sadly something that can not be felt after viewing Dreams of a Life, simply because there are no answers.

There is so much that can be said about the film, and is sure to be the topic of many conversations for a long time to come, but if there is one thing that must be stressed it’s this- the film is absolutely outstanding. The subject is confronted with such a dignity- one that was missing from the original headline that caught Morley’s eye in The Sun newspaper; there’s no tacky conspiracy theories, no grizzly photo’s or details- just a very sad story about a rather sad girl- well, that’s my theory anyway- form your own and go and see it.

Great British Icons- Shane Meadows: A Room for Romeo Brass

A Room for Romeo Brass was the third feature to come from Meadows, earning him three BIFA nominations, and considered by many to be his best film. Set in the Midlands (an area which Meadows has yet to stray from) the film follows the story of Gavin ‘Knocks’ (Ben Marshall) and Romeo (Andrew Shim)- two young boys who are befriended by local weirdo Morell (Paddy Considine) and coerced by him to persuade Romeo’s sister Ladine (Vicky McClure) to go out with him.

The film begins innocently enough- Romeo and Knocks larking around, buying pie and chips from a familiar-looking chip shop worker (one of two cameos from Meadows in the film). As the boys, who live next to each other, go in to their respective homes, we see that their bond is most probably strengthed by their mutual disdain for their own homes. Romeo’s mother (Ladene Hall) is well-meaning but incredibly domineering, and his father (Frank Harper) has just turned up unannounced after seemily deserting the family previously- something that Romeo is less than happy about. Knocks, meanwhile, suffers from an unnamed back condition, which means that his mother (Julia Harper) is kind but over-bearing, whilst his father (James Higgins) is extremely disinterested.

So it is easy to see how the boys fall prey to the naive, socially inept Morell, who rescues the boys from a beating from two local lads. At first, whilst it is obvious that Morell is a little… off, he has a certain sweet charm, as well as a fierce sense of protection for the two lads that is initially endearing. It is only when the boys play a trick on him that things start to go wrong, and Morell slowly begins to unravel- threatening Knocks at knife point (out of sight of Romeo) and creating conflict between the two boys.

Perhaps the reason that the film is so celebrated is the absolutely stirling performances by the cast, which we have now come to expect from a Meadows film. Considine gives an absolutely haunting performance as Morell. He constantly flips from the village idiot that you want to take pity on to scowling maniac who makes you want to run. In one scene in particular, he manages to get Ladine to come over to his house for a date. After psyching himself up in the most bizarre display, he dons a silk dressing gown and a tiny pair of blue y-fronts, and attempts to seduce Ladine by asking her to ‘fucking touch it.’ Ladine, barely containing her sniggers, tells him where to go. Then the scene, whic has been light-hearted up to this point, immediately turns sinister as she realises that he is not taking ‘no’ for an answer.

It’s the duality of this character that has become a signature in Meadows films, particularly through Considine. In Dead Man’s Shoes, for example, there is a definiate pity for Richard, but also an absolute fear for what he is capable of. In This is England, and particularly ’86 and ’88, we feel desperately sorry for Lol, yet at the same time exasperated with her inabilty to open up to the very people that we know can help her.

Amongst other things, Meadows manages to latch on to something very human in his films, that enable the viewer to become totally engrossed in the story. It is a skill that continues to this day with This Is England ’88, and resonates through each and every one of his films, which we will come to discover…

New Review: My Week With Marilyn

Every so often you hear whisperings from various places that there’s going to be a film about someone so extraordinarily huge that the first thing you think is.. ‘who on earth is going to play them?’ Enter Michelle Williams, playing Marilyn Monroe in Simon Curtis’ feature film debut My Week With Marilyn. Now I’ll be the first to admit that when I first heard of the project, I assumed it was going to be some very, very naff sort-of biopic that was going to enrage Marilyn lovers all over the globe, and I’m pleased to say that it wasn’t that bad.

Now obviously that’s not the most flattering thing that any one is going to say about a film, but it’s got to be said that the film does have a gentle sort of charm. Williams gives an impressive performance as Marilyn, all airy and naively sexy, but also tragic and melancholy at times. Kenneth Branagh plays an excellent Olivier and Eddie Redmayne is an absolutely adorable Colin Clark- in fact, on reflection it’s fair to say that the cast is basically faultless.

But the film does lack a certain…. je ne sais quoi. We have to remember that we watching a story concerning one of the most iconic figures in cinema history. Surely we should come away feeling elated, heartbroken, uplifted etc. etc? But the film fails to deliver that magic element that makes a film stick in your mind afterwards. Yes, the film was nice- it was pleasant, but then again so was the turkey baguette I had for lunch… probably not going to remember it for the rest of my life though.

Having said that, does every single film that you go an watch in the cinema have to be some amazing, life-changing experience?.. not really, but it helps if they are. It would be fair to say that the film could’ve been a lot worse- I’m not sure that many would come out of the film feeling ripped off or angry, and I suppose I would recommend it to a friend who had not much else to do. I am desparately trying not to use the word ‘mediocre’ but… yeah.