A Pigment of My Imagination

This film, an epic tale of a mapmaker’s romance and tragedies set in WWII, seemed to steal both audiences and critic’s hearts alike when it came out in 1996. The following year, it won by a landslide at the Oscars (taking away an impressive 9 Awards, including Best Picture, Director, and Supporting Actress). Thus as a fan of grand period pieces and romantic dramas in general, I knew it was about time I finally saw this flick.

Despite all the hype, my viewing of the film left me a little cold. I don’t know what exactly it was, probably a combination of many elements, but somehow I could never fully connect with the story or the characters. I haven’t watched other Anthony Minghella films to see how this one compares with his later ones (although I do want to see most of them), but I know he was a pretty well-acclaimed director before his early death a few years back.

From a technical point, the film is pretty impressive. It is a grand romance tale, with numerous characters, set among a dramatic war-torn canvas. In some ways, it feels is a throwback to old Hollywood romances like “Gone with the Wind”. The film has a smashing cast. Ralph Fiennes plays the Count Almasy. The film opens with his disastrous plane accident that leaves him charred and approaching death. Hana (Juliette Binoche) is a nurse who decides to leave the war train and move Almasy to an abandoned house to care for his as he grows weaker. Almasy then, through means of his Herodotus diary/photo book, begins to tell us his tale and what led him to where he is now. I must say, this method of storytelling (a main character on his/her deathbed sharing flashbacks of their life with a younger bedside audience), although quite popular (recently used in “Benjamin Button”) and rather poetic, I personally find it a little distracting, and would sometimes just like to see the story play as a live account, instead of always breaking the narrative by going back to a dying storyteller…

(caption credits below go to IGN.com, who not only write excellent film reviews, but terrific captions, just couldn’t pass this one up to share)

Do you prefer your Ralph regular…

…or extra crispy?

Kristin Scott Thomas plays Almasy’s lover, Katharine Clifton, who cheats on her husband (Colin Firth). Willem Dafoe plays Carvaggio, the thief with a secret past (he immediately calls attention to his performance as a wild personality, but personally I found it distracting, and his personality never really seemed to pick a consistent tone). Finally Naveen Andrews as Kip, who falls in love with Hana (and I must say, he always seems to play the same character, but certainly has improved a lot by his “Lost” days). I must say, Kristin Scott Thomas and Juliette Binoche both are probably some of my favorite actresses working on Hollywood today. They each, in their respective ways, always feel very classy (in a Golden Age Hollywood kinda way), while at the same time having a very international and edgy feel of modernity, so it’s a treat having them in the same film. Fiennes here seems to play a snobby jerk for the first half of the film, and I could never really see him as the “hero” of the story. Apparently many film fans consider his and Thomas’ romance here to be one of the all-time film romances, but personally, I always felt it was a little forced and based on mere infatuation and loneliness, instead of true love. And even if it is true love, I find it hard to support an affair, no matter how desperate the circumstances. Also, there a too nudity, which really adds nothing to the story, except to highlight the scandalous nature of the affair, I suppose.

John Seale’s cinematography is large in scope, and really stands out when you see the planes flying and the wide shots of the desert sands, and showcasing the production design and period set decoration. However, the look of this film is a little dated and definitely feels like a 90’s movie.

Gabriel Yared’s score is a rather bizarre mix of very classical-feeling romance music, and ethnic desert, wailing voice music. Ultimately, it felt a little too distant and not conceptually cohesive. I was never quite bought the burn make-up job on Fiennes, granted I’m no expert on burn wounds, but it always seemed a bit too plastic-y, and his whole performance as a dying man a bit too forced.

All in all, a solid film, one with a large scope and ambition, but one that falls a little flat for me. I’ve heard that it improves upon more viewings, and so maybe it’ll grow on me after subsequent watching. Still though, I wish Hollywood made more movies like this, as I’d rather see an overly ambitious film than an overly cautious and cliché one.

So, till now, most the films I’ve been reviewing are favorites of mine or one’s I’ve always wanted to see, and thus, for the most part, I’ve simply been gushing over them, with endless positive things to say. However, not all films quite float my boat, and in fact, I tend to be quite critical sometimes. Now that I’m back at school, hopefully I will have more regular access to a variety of films other than just my own choices, and have to deal with things I do and don’t like. Last night I watched “The Duchess”, starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes, and sadly, was pretty disappointed.

I must start off by saying that I am a huge fan of period films. I have always loved history and studying ancient cultures. Pretty much all my favorite movies are epic costume dramas (whether it’s historical fiction or fantasy, etc). In fact, these are the very types of movies I would love to ultimately direct (unfortunately they don’t work well in college with a lack of budget…). Many people talk about loving or hating movies. I almost ever am at either of these extremes. I normally always find things I really like, but I also am very demanding and can feel very disappointed if the movie fails in some way.

Anyways, onto the movie. I remember when this came out a while ago, and thought it looked interesting (always have to see what the competition is for period films… aka, what I’ll have to top), but missed this one in the theaters.

“Based on a true story,” this film tells the story of Georgiana, her tragic marriage to the Duke of Devonshire, her social and romantic life, and all the scandals involved. However, I found this film to be very flat. From a technical standpoint it’s pretty solid: good cast and pretty decent acting, clearly a competent budget that shows on screen, etc. Yet I never was really able to connect much with the characters despite all the hardships they go through. The film just seemed to keep me at the edge, looking on all this tragedy, but I never really entered their lives. I admire that the film wasn’t just a gushing cliche Hollywood romance, and instead, tried to present the awkward, cold, formal, ceremonial, and pointlessly superficial life of the British elite of that time period. Many scenes in the movie captured this unique feel well (like the first utterly un-romanticized sex scene).

The film shows just how different these people were from us, and how they were bound by their cultural norms. I wish however that there was something to relate with to these characters. Fiennes’ Duke was  completely heartless, not really trying to be a jerk, but with no real sense of compassion or connection to his wife at all. She responds with a life of superficial show: playing to the crowds, becoming an ancient form of star celebrity, wasting ridiculous amounts of money on ridiculous dresses and hairdos. She also carries on a rather stupid love affair with Grey, and although I can sympathize with her horrid life and lack of love, this still does in no way justify her rash actions and childish affections for this man.

Visually, the film was both impressive and flat. The film does look very beautiful, with gorgeous intricate costumes, and locations. However, the cinematography itself struck me as very plain. In my opinion, when the shots looks beautiful, it’s because of what’s actually being filmed, and not because of how it was photographed. Keira Knightley is one of the luckiest new stars in Hollywood today, and somehow managed to be in nearly every big period piece done in the last few years, I’m jealous.

Probably what I thought was the most impressive and successful aspect of this film was the music. Rachel Portman yet again gives us a lushly orchestrated, thematic score. It is beautiful and romantic and flowing, and is one of the few things that actually helps keep the movie from being swallowed up in it’s own dull universe.

Ultimately, I found this to be a well put-together movie, but one that failed to really engage me as a story and as art. It was very much a downer, and even though it ends on a somewhat positive note, the characters really don’t learn or improve much, but only learn to adapt to their abysmal surroundings.  I must say, in this case, I almost would have seem cliche romance, at least that’s something I can enjoy…

    Ultimately, Coppola’s film is a mostly faithful adaptation of Stoker’s world, but takes some creative liberties in updating the tale for a modern audience. With a cast of mostly young, handsome, and popular actors, Coppola chose to break the Victorian impositions of the novel and made it appealing to a wider audience. The technical and artistic merits of the film are impressive and give the story the operatic grandeur that it deserves.

Coppola’s biggest departure from the novel was the incorporation of the romantic arc between Dracula and Mina. The film closes with them alone, in the same temple-like room where Dracula first abandoned God. Beneath the shadow of the cross, Mina plunges a stake into Dracula’s heart, freeing him from an eternity of suffering. Wrapped in Mina’s arms, Dracula is finally at peace. Thus, instead of celebrating the defeat of the ultimate evil, as per the novel, we are left with a heartbreaking Shakespearean ending. As the film’s tag line states, “love never dies,” but in this thematic change, Bram Stoker’s Dracula replaces the Christian faith with erotic romance. This is a drastic move, but one that seems to follow the pattern of many modern adaptations, and no doubt fueled the success of the film, especially among younger audiences. This change aside, the 1992 film is a faithful and vibrant adaptation of Stoker’s masterpiece. Coppola and Hart wanted to return to the original book, and for the most part, their goal was spectacularly accomplished, and this intoxicating film is worthy of its title—Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

…

There’s that! Read the book, very fascinating. And watch the movie, there’s a brand new Collector’s Edition DVD with a new transfer and special features.

Also, here’s some books to check out: great books about Coppola’s life and films:

Clarke, James. Coppola (Virgin Film). London: Virgin Books, 2003.
Schumacher, Michael. Francis Ford Coppola: A Filmmaker’s Life. New York: Crown Publishers, 1999.

    Thus, instead of religious faith being the driving force behind the story, the filmmakers decided to replace this with a new element—romance. Stoker’s work presents a clear distinction between the sexually conservative Victorian life and the alluringly erotic world of the evil undead (most obviously embodied in the Count’s three “brides”). The novel’s strong and intelligent heroine, Mina Murray, is an image of innocence, purity and faith, a woman firmly in keeping with the strict boundaries of traditional Victorian ideals. The romance is the novel is minimal, with Mina’s marriage to Jonathan Harker not one of strong passions, but led by respect and devotion.

The film nearly flips this moral compass on its head. Coppola described his impressions of Hart’s script as story soaked in “passion and eroticism” (qtd. in Schumacher 437). This is where the plot and characters of the film most radically differ from the original material. The new take becomes a very romantic one—essentially a love story between Dracula and Mina. In a journal entry, Coppola described this relationship as two eternal “souls reaching out through a universe of horror and pathos,” an element not found in the novel (Clarke 213).

In fact, for the film, Hart and Coppola literally create a new life for the two lovers. This extends Stoker’s characters into a mythic past. Winona Ryder thus not only plays Mina, but also appears in the beginning of the film as Elisabeta, the wife of Lord Vlad. Elisabeta commits suicide upon hearing of Vlad’s supposed death. When Vlad (then a crusader for the Church) returns victorious from battle to find his wife excommunicated for her suicide, he runs his sword through a giant cross, drowning the room in blood, and renounces his faith, condemning himself to an eternity without divine mercy. As the movie progresses, we find Dracula searching for his lost love, and discovering her in the person of Mina (both of whom share a sort of psychic bond when they first meet). Later, Mina almost mystically becomes aware that she is Elisabeta reincarnated and thus destined to be with the Count. Consequentially, the scene where Dracula bites Mina and turns her into a vampire, instead of being a moment of horror and defeat, becomes a passionately erotic, mystical fusion of two souls, fated for each other in eternity (Dracula).

The character of Count Dracula similarly is adjusted. Like Mina, the Count has also been given a mystic link to the past. In the book’s third chapter, Dracula proudly recounts that he is a descendant of Prince Vlad (Stoker). In the film, Vlad is Dracula, cursed to be reborn into each new century, desperately searching for his lost soul mate. Instead of being a servant of evil, the ultimate villain, he now becomes a sexually charged and tragic anti-hero. With this new Dracula, played extravagantly by Gary Oldman, sexuality is no longer associated with moral corruption but is used to create a seductively alluring romantic icon.

    Coppola does, however, make a rather serious deviation in the tone and themes of the film and this casts a shadow on the rest of the story, and is largely responsible for the other changes in the adaptation. Bram Stoker wrote his book in the Victorian era. It was a repressed world, yet one on the verge of many new discoveries and much social upheaval. These changes included a more liberal view of sexuality, science, and ethics. Despite Stoker’s delving into many of these themes, his novel has a strong sense of absolute truth. He doesn’t shy away from describing violence or sexual references, and the novel often incorporates Eastern mystical concepts (“Dracula”). Yet, through it all, the novel retains a strong core of Christian belief that permeates the world and life of the protagonists. Thus, though Stoker presents a very dark world of temptations, it is clearly associated with evil, and it is in clear opposition to the Christian ethic that the book’s heroes embrace. It is a very visual and imaginative portrayal of the battle between good versus evil.

Coppola takes a different approach when it comes to the theme of spirituality. Although he doesn’t remove the religious elements from the story, he paints them in a very different light. While the novel had a sense of morality defined by faith, the movie is much more ambiguous. The film is filled with Christian imagery, yet its symbolic intent is not always clear. Crucifixes (as well as communion wafers and holy water) in the original are powerful tools given by God to fight the Devil, whereas in the adaptation, the cross motif often seems to highlight a more modern and pessimistic views toward the Church. The use of the cross now almost becomes an attack on clichéd fanatical religiousness. In the hands of Dr. Van Helsing, the cross is used as a weapon. But while the book shows him to be a firm defender of the faith, the film presents him as a near madman, obsessed with vengeance and glory. Thus, we are taken from a world of clear right and wrong into one where these very concepts are put into question.

The film also changes its focus in its use of symbols. Blood is used frequently in the novel. The blood is meant to be a shocking contrast to spirituality. In the practice of communion, Christians celebrate “the blood of Christ” and the cleansing power of blood. When Dracula drinks his victim’s blood to keep himself alive, it is a perversion of the act of communion, and thus, a direct attack against God himself (“Dracula”). In the film, blood is a central motif; this adaptation is practically drenched with it. From the extreme close-ups of blood cells from Dr. Seward’s microscope, to bleeding necks, to Vlad’s scarlet armor and robes, to the photography’s red tint, Coppola not only incorporates the motif as used by Stoker but takes it a step further. Coppola’s blood becomes a sexual symbol. The fear of sexually transmitted diseases is felt throughout this film as the danger of the unknown. During this time, Coppola was also developing a project about AIDS, and many of those ideas seem to carry into Dracula (Clarke 213). It is this blood that comes to dominate the film, and represents Mina’s surrendering to Dracula, as in one central scene where she literally drinks blood from the Count’s chest. Ultimately, blood becomes not a sacrilegious insult to Christianity, but an erotic bond that unifies the characters in the film, both physically and aesthetically. The red embodies both the horror and pain in the story, but also the passion and romance (Stoker).

The translation from paper to celluloid was successfully executed, and with great flair. The book is told entirely through journal or newspaper entries, which gives the piece a sense being grounded in reality. Coppola rejected the emerging capabilities of computer effects and instead opted to have all the effects done in-camera. He wanted the film to have an old-school look, using mirrors and “naïve” tricks, as if someone in the nineteenth century had actually filmed on location (Schumacher 448). Also, to tie into the book’s narration formula, Hart incorporates sections of the original text into the film. Anthony Hopkins, playing Abraham Van Helsing, becomes the main narrator of the film. We are also given short journal entries read by Mina and Jonathan that guide us through expository scenes early in the film (Dracula).

The production of the film is exceptional. Hart described the prose of the novel as a “wet” and “feverish” dream, and the film reflects this visually with the editing of the film, as well as its visual style (qtd. in Clarke 212). Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a sumptuous visual feast. The film was shot entirely on sound stages, giving it a highly theatrical look. This deliberate artificiality gave Coppola extreme control to manipulate the film’s operatic scope and a magical spirit. Michael Ballhaus’ cinematography is luscious, highlighting vibrant reds among pools of dark shadows. Eiko Ishioka’s exotically beautiful costumes graphically portray their characters and fill each shot with a sense of mythical grandeur.

Thomas Sander’s production design gives a stage-like sense of emptiness, isolating the characters, and filling the screen with impending doom. Wojciech Kilar’s pounding and lyrical orchestral score reaches from the epic to the intimate (Clarke 214). As a director, Coppola made brilliant choices when it came to hiring his crew. The inspired work gives a sense of seriousness and urgency to the film and elevates it above the typical Hollywood blockbuster. It is truly spectacular to see Stoker’s world unfold before your eyes under the hands of a cinematic genius.

Back when I was still at College of DuPage in Illinois, I took a number of film classes. Mostly they were more discussion based, not actual production courses, and they were more literary based, actually in the English department, which was a very interesting spin, focusing on very critical and in-depth analysis, which I loved. By far my favorite teacher there was Dr. Robert Georgalas, a terrific man and film expert, I took three classes with him. My last with him(taken this summer), “Film as Literature” was a great course, looking at the more literary elements of films, and how novels/plays/etc are translated into films. For a final paper in the course, we had to pick from a list of adaptations and analyze whether the novel–>film translation had been successful. I choose to write about Coppola’s “Dracula” movie. My teacher loved this essay and had it submitted into the school’s student writing magazine, but unfortunately it never won anything. Anyways, I will break it up into more manageable chunks, and this time it will come illustrated! enjoy!

…

(film’s teaser trailer to put you in the mood)

…

    The character of the Count Dracula has captivated readers for centuries. Bram Stoker’s seminal work, Dracula, sparked a flurry of stories about vampires and a near cult following of vampirism that lasts till this day. Filmmakers have also been seduced by these classic stories and hundreds of films have revolved around the vampire mythos. Yet, inescapably, these films are drawn back to their classic birthplace—Dracula himself. Classics like F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu in 1922, and Tod Browning’s 1931 Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, have cemented the character as a cinematic icon since the earliest days of film. Count Dracula, the king of the undead, has been reborn in countless film adaptations, although many stray far from the storyline of Stoker’s original. Enter legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola was a fan of the original novel and wanted to make a more faithful adaptation. Released in 1992, Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a successful re-imagining of Stoker’s gothic masterpiece.

   Bram Stoker was an Irish author born in the nineteenth century. In Dracula, Stoker drew from a rich heritage of vampire legends of the Middle Ages and added a historical realism to the story by incorporating the tale of Vlad “the Impaler” Tepes and thus immortalizing the Dracula myth. Stoker’s novel, published in 1897, was also making many commentaries about England and the world in a time of great social change (“Dracula”).

   Adapting Stoker’s words into the 1992 film proved a difficult journey. Screenwriter James V. Hart first wrote a take on the story that emphasized the love story, and turned Dracula into a romantic anti-hero. The script was originally intended to be used for a TV adaptation, but was rejected. Eventually, Winona Ryder came across the script and it was she who sought out Coppola. The director saw the filmic potential in a new retelling of the tale, but was only interested if the adaptation was faithful to Stoker’s vision. At the same time, Coppola wanted to create something fresh and inspired, giving the audiences something they had never seen before. Coppola fell in love with Hart’s take on the story, and days later the project was in motion (Schumacher 438).

    Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a largely faithful adaptation of its source material, although inevitably, in the translation from one medium to another, some changes were made. Many previous Dracula films had selectively chosen elements of the original and expanded on those in their own way, removing various secondary characters, setting the story exclusively in Transylvania, transporting the whole myth into a modern landscape, and taking major creative liberties with the portrayal of the Count himself. Hart and Coppola, however, were enamored with Stoker’s complete story and Dracula’s threatening voyage from Transylvania to the protagonists’ home turf in England. Hart also kept previously discarded characters like Lucy’s suitors, Arthur Holmwood and the Texan, Quincey Morris, and the Count’s servants, the Tartars, who gave the book a more complex and diverse backdrop. Coppola also follows the book’s pattern of the Count’s reverse aging, becoming younger as the story progresses. True, many details from the novel are passed over for the sake of a more rapid storytelling, yet the film preserves the overall plot structure and settings intact (Dracula).

…and so, Kenneth Branagh, atop his feisty white steed, leads his troops and his audiences into the first battle of the film! This version of William Shakespeare’s immortal “Henry V” is not the first incarnation the story has seen on film (I really wanna see the Laurence Olivier version), but it is one of the strongest. Released in 1989, this was Branagh’s directorial debut, and what a glorious achievement it is!! A stunning and fierce piece of craftsmanship.

This was a film that I grew up watching. Well, maybe not grew up, but it’s one that my family would rent every few years from the local video store and enjoy.  I remember not being able to follow lots of the dialogue (it still is an aquired skill), but was always impressed with it, and greatly enjoyed it. It’s also one of the few war movies that my mom enjoys watching, which is quite a back-handed compliment. I was lucky enought to receive the DVD for my recent birthday, and watched the film last night. It had been several years since I’d last seen it. It’s interesting watching movies that you watched as a kid, seeing them now that you’re older, especially after some film classes, and seeing how it compares to your previous memories and impressions. In this case, the film passes with flying colors, and although I found a lot of it slow, I also greatly appreciated the film in many new (and hopefully more intelligent) ways.

The film is based on historical events. I don’t know exactly how accurate the account is, but I do know that the most amazing parts (like the David/Goliath-esque victory at Agincourt) are well documented (it’s the British and French here, after all…). The film has no screenwriter listed, only crediting The Bard himself. I am no expert on Shake’s original works and words, unfortunately, but I assume that the film is pretty much word-for-word to the original. That being said, I’m sure Branagh worked carefully to abridge and edit the words to fit the film’s length (can any Shakespeare experts help me out here?). I can only imagine that it is quite a daunting task to turn the Bard’s words into a film. There have been many attempts, and it seems all have their own spin: some stick too close, others wander too far. It must be a hard balance to honor the original work, but adapt it successfuly to a very different medium. Branagh himself has experimented with this quite a bit himself, and is probably single-handedly the man to bring Shakespeare to our current generation of film-goers in a powerful new way, and that is no small thing!

The beginning of the film does feel very experimental, and a bit too theatrical, people just seem to stand and talk at each other. It seems a bit tied to the characters’ streams of monologues. It isn’t till the plot progresses onto new locations and the war begins to brew that the film really picks up steam and seems to truly breathe with a life of its own. Actually, as I was watching the film this time, I was indeed struck by just how slow and stagey it feels at first. Also, its remarkable how few scenes there actually are in a 2+ hour movie. However, what is there, is very well inhabited. The whole film seems to build up until the climactic Battle of St. Crispins Day/Agincourt, and what a payoff! Still though, a very oddly paced film: how many war films end with a 10-minute comedic romance scene that somehow manages to fit?

Acting: Solid all around. Kenneth Branagh is on fire here, and his passion lights up the screen! Some people have described him as being a little full of himself, and I dare not comment there, all I know is that as the young King Harry, he is simply breath-taking! Although barely a young man, his character is filled with courage and honor and fervor. He inspires those around him with his loving heart and bold words. Branagh truly becomes this character, body and spirit, and his acting will bring tears. His speeches are delivered perfectly (his pre-battle speech steals the thunder right out of Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” one). His Henry V is charming and admirable, friendly yet terrifying, humble yet royal.

The supporting cast is equally splendid: Emma Thompson (hilarious and heart-warming), Derek Jacobi (terrific as the interesting role of the “Chorus” guiding the film along), Judi Dench, Brian Blessed, Ian Holm, Paul Scofield, and Christian Bale himself (a very young performance, yet studly as ever).

Music: Perfect! Patrick Doyle strikes again, except actually, this was his first ever film score, and it is absolutely brilliant. His music in the Branagh films always plays a big role, often very upfront, and this is probably the strongest example. His music is gorgeously orchestrated and performed with much gusto. The music is like a dragon, it is passionate and fiery, snaking its way through the film. Indeed, it serves as both the backbone and soul of the film. Doyle develops over half a dozen themes and motifs, all beautiful melodies which really serve to underscore the performances on screen, serving as our glimpse into the minds of the characters. Sometimes the dialog seems to continue slightly monotonously, but its the music that gives the scene its pace and urgency, and adds a much larger scope to the emotional impact of the story. The music for the speech and battle of Agincourt is perfectly triumphant and tragic at the same time (and is a very frequently quoted piece of music, especially for movie trailers). Doyle also uses one of the noblest musical themes of the film, and turns it into the post-battle anthem: “Non Nobis Domine”, sung as the victorious British troops wander the battlefield, collecting their dead (Doyle himself frequently makes cameos in Branagh’s films, here as the young bearded soldier who starts off the singing!). This is a beautiful piece of music, and has even entered popular culture as a sort of icon. Even Steve Green has performed it in his concerts as if it were a hymn. Absolute stunning work from Patrick Doyle, clearly a young composer’s dream project!

Cinematography: Solid work from Kenneth MacMillan. In many ways, this is a very visually sparing film. It sometimes feels like a student film on steroids. In studying the scenes, it’s remarkable to see just how little is shown, but how much is implied (a good skill to have). You have many and relatively limited close-ups, with very selective use of wider establishing shots. This is a brilliant example of making an epic period piece on a budget, you feel there is a lot more than is ever actually there. The scenes are also cleverly lit, seemingly with a lot of natural moon and candle light for the dark scenes, which gives them a haunting glow. The shot of Henry’s entrance is stunning and already a sort of icon in visual film history. But the film looks best outside, facing the elements: rain, fog, mud, blood, etc. This is a very gritty film, and the battle sequences are very grim and dirty and often quite graphic, showing the brutal reality and despair of warfare. Harry’s walk through the camp the night before the battle is amazing to behold, a hooded figure among the misty forest. And the gigantic tracking single-shot over the battlefield, following the troops, has not been rivalled, even today. The DVD transfer is not perfect, but picks up on much richer contrasts, and the color palette of the film: bright reds and blues, against a somber background of grays/browns/greens.

Well, wow, what a gargantuan review. I still feel I’ve barely scratched the surface. Watch it. Truly a terrific directorial debut from Branagh, very passionately told story. I have really enjoyed most of the work he has done. He is currently listed as the director for the new “Thor” movie in the works (after Matthew Vaughn got booted), and if that is true, I am very excited to see what he does with that, it has EPIC written all over it!!

…

[Addressing the troops]
King Henry V: And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by from this day until the ending of the world but we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers, For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, Be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves acursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin’s day!

“Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.”

Great tag line for a great film. It was interesting reading about the history of this movie, apparently it didn’t receive too much attention in its original theatrical run, get 7 Oscar nominations, but it wasn’t till years later thanks to TV viewings and video sales that it developed a cult audience, and has since gone on to become a modern-day classic.

I apparently missed out on most of this history, and only saw the movie for a first time maybe about 4 or 5 years ago. I really enjoyed it. But unfortunately, in the years since then, had forgotten many details.  Thus when making online wishlists, I saw this one, in a brand-spanking new DVD 2-Disc 10th Anniversary Special Edition, and knew this was the real deal: several excellent new documentaries, interviews, commentary, a spoof, new digital remastered transfer, and gorgeous new cover artwork by the very god of film poster art (Drew Struzan himself!)! I knew I had to get it for myself… well, even better–it was bought for me!

So last night, I sat down with my family to watch this film for my second time, and boy oh boy! Frank Darabont, thanks for your gift to the world! Seriously, I don’t even know how to begin to describe this film, such a monumental achievement, a timeless work of art, a very intelligent and honest film, dark yet hopeful, intimate yet epic.

A nearly perfect cast. Apparently, in Stephen King’s original short story the character of Red is Irish, and yet Darabont wanted Morgan Freeman (this is cleverly joked at in the film). Freeman wanted to work with Tim Robbins and voila! — a match made in heaven! These two actors are spot on, the entire film, they give such virbrant and honest performances, yet very humble and restrained. Everyone else in the film though is terrific as well, every minor character is fully fleshed out and well acted. The world of the film feels extremely realistic and grounded. These are real people, with real lives, emotions, fears and dreams.

Roger Deakins work is always stunning. Although in this film, most of the film isn’t meant to stun, or to be beautiful. A lot of the film is shot relatively simply, grays and blues dominate the cold world of the prison. It on purposely establishes a sort of visual monotony, just like the prisoner’s lives. And yet, what that monotony is broken, it is all that more beautiful because of the hard-earned contrast. The terrific helicopter shot, the aerial views as Mozart plays through the speakers, the occasional views of “outside”, and then finally, Andy’s escape is literally a breath of fresh air, and he runs under the rain–free! The scenes once Red is free, out in the fields, by the large tree, and later on the Zihuatanejo beach are simply stunning. In another movie, those kind of shots, while pretty, might just be cliche, but in this movie, they are absolutely earned, and they are even more dramatic because of it. You really feel the strong breeze of freedom and just what it means for these characters who have lived in hell for so long.

Indeed, this film does not shy way from showing hell. The film is full of violence, swearing, murder, rape, beatings, despair, suicide, etc. The story is not one for the weak, and you need a strong stomach to swallow it, yet it does not sensationalize any of it, or attempt to use it just as typical Hollywood emotional attention-getters. This movie shows life and truth, the brutal honest truth, of what life was like for these men. Yet through it all, and this is probably what makes the film so moving, the darkness is never all-consuming. For such a torturous setting, this film is filled hope! And this hope is ever-present. It is a light always peeking out from the darkness. The film shows the very delicate balance that hope and despair play in real life, they can come and go in a blink of an eye. It shows how these men survive even the bleakest of circumstances and yet manage to find humor and joy and frienship in the world they are forced to live in. The film is a true testament to the human spirit to survive and to rise above its circumstances. The film wrestles with the unfairness of life: the innocent are blamed, people are lied to, cheated, and betrayed, etc. Yet despite this, the film ends on a positive note–friendship can overcome the power of the world to bring us down! The film is a testament of Red and Andy’s courage, friendship, honor, and search for truth, and is a great example for my own life. As Red says, “get busy living, or get busy dying”.

Wow, ok, so so much more to say, I feel very giddy and excited and feel I could write for hours about this film. Hats off to Mr. Frank Darabont, such a stupendous effort, and especially for a debut film!! I also love “The Green Mile”. It’s amazing that this man has not made more movies, yet I guess this helps him to come up with masterpieces when he does. I want to see “The Mist” another effort with Stephen King, although I’ve heard mixed reviews about it. Also, he is listed as writing/directing “Fahrenheit 451″ which is one of my favorite books, so I am very eagerly awaiting news on that!!

In the meantime, live life to the fullest, and never give up hope!

I remember seeing the first teaser trailer for this movie several months back and being absolutely intrigued. Great cast, some artsy looking shots, a clever premise, beautifully haunting piano theme from “Days of Heaven”, and what? a David Fincher movie not having to do with grisly death and despair?!?!

Well, after a long wait filled with anticipation, I have finally seen it! I read (well, skimmed, so as not to ruin it all) a few reviews before seeing it which were very flattering, and so I went in with high hopes. And I must say, I am not at all disappointed, in fact, I really loved this movie!

I believe it is one of the best new movies I have seen recently, probably one of the strong, most original films to come out of Hollywood in a while. I won’t waste too much time describing the story, you can either find it online, or even better, just go watch it yourself. After all, movies are meant to be watched, not described!

Anyways, congratulations to Fincher for making a solid film, bold and visionary like most of his previous work, yet entirely different from anything else that I’ve seen by him before, both in terms of style, genre and emotional material. Visually, the film is absolutely stunning. Cinematographer Claudio Miranda (who I will keep an eye on from now on) treats this film with painterly beauty, leading the audience through the story’s world with one gorgeous shot to another. The film is rich in color, bathed in golden splendor, yet given a dark, aged and fantastic feel. It is a true treat to behold: striking sets, open seas, moody nights, beaches, striking sunsets, giant clocks, brilliant stars (I love the use of red for Daisy’s character)… and all captured marvelously.

Alexandre Desplat’s score is very orchestrally complex and beautiful, but is very mysterious and restrained, not a typical Hollywood score with big crescendos telling you “ok, its supposed to be romantic right now”, and supports the film brilliantly, while not stealing too much attention, or taking away from the actor’s job to carry the film.

Acting-wise, this film is excellent. Terrific casting all around. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett might be Hollywood’s pretty faces, and the movie certainly plays off that fact (although in very clever, and often humbling ways), yet it also displays their true work as actors. I know Brad Pitt gets a lot of slack, but personally, I think he is a terrific actor, when put in the right role, and with the right director (clearly, Fincher + Pitt = good). If you don’t expect him to play a Greek semi-god (*cough* Troy, which granted, I still liked), then you’re fine. As Benjamin Button, he is both captivating and endearing, and it is truly captivating to see him wrestly with his character, and having to balance his physical age with his mental age.

Cate Blanchett was, as always, breath-takingly spectacular. I was at first very turned off by Daisy’s earlier scenes of immorality, but she earned my respect later on, and ends up a very admirable and sympathetic character, despite her flaws. All the minor characters are strongly fleshed out as well. A terrific performance for the Queenie character, and great supporting work from Tilda Swinton and Jason Flemyng and Julia Ormond.

Thematically, the film raises a lot of questions, and I’m not quite sure I have grasped exactly what it was going for, or what Fincher was trying to say. Granted, I believe films are meant to raise questions, and not to preach, nevertheless, I did feel the film was vert ambiguous about some of its moral statements. However, this is a film that tackles serious subjects: the importance of life, true love, fear of death and aging, the battle between the physical and emotional worlds, etc — and for that I applaud it. I have read some reviews which state the film is kept at an arm’s length from the audience. I agree partially, I think the film was sometimes a bit cold. But I admire Fincher for being able to do that, instead of just making it a cliche, sappy Hollywood romance (a la “Australia”). The film doesn’t tell you what to feel, but does its best to present the truth of the story as is, and let you as an audience make up your own mind what you believe is wrong and right, and who you feel for.

Overall, a far from perfect film, but a very bold and beautiful made film, a clever and absolutely intriguing story, fascinating characters, quirky comedy, passionate romance, and more. It is a very intelligent film, one that makes you think and question the cliche reality that we come to accept. It is also a film with great heart. My respect and thanks to the whole team, and I hope the Oscars agree.