DAILY FILM DOSE: A Daily Film Appreciation and Review Blog: Sam Mendes
[go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Sam Mendes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Mendes. Show all posts

Monday, 12 November 2012

Skyfall

Perhaps the best action scene ever in a Bond film is a remarkable hand-to-hand scrap in a Shanghai high rise, elegantly shot in silhouette with a colourful neon advertisement in the background. It’s short but indicative of director Sam Mendes’ admirable modus operandi – brevity, judiciousness and evocative imagery – which help make Skyfall the most cinematic of all the Bond films.


Skyfall (2012) dir. Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Naomi Harris, Judi Dench

By Alan Bacchus

We finally have an exciting director at the helm. With that said, it comes after a series of increasingly disappointing pictures since Mendes’ celebrated American Beauty, so we can’t help feel the perception of his involvement as an attempt of career rejuvenation. Well, it worked. There’s an added skip in Mendes’ step, as he delivers a film with all the energy and aggressive action, as well as a sense of the cinematic, that is missing in every other Bond film.

The idea of using only adequate technical directors to helm these now 23 Bond movies always irked me. Why did it take so long for the MGM and EON production team to realize film was a director’s medium, not a producer's? Tom Cruise, as producer of the Mission Impossible films, knew this. I guess the reasoning was that the franchise was bigger than the director, and that an auteur vision could scramble their money-making formula. The one-off success of Casino Royale notwithstanding, this ignorant view has resulted in a franchise continually stymied for creativity and freshness.

Long gone is the usual opening circular frame of the gun’s viewpoint that traditionally opens these movies. Instead Mendes cuts right into his first action sequence, the theft of the film’s maguffin, a stolen file listing all the MI6 names and their aliases (not unlike the stolen NOC list in Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible). As 007 chases the villain through the streets of Istanbul, it’s all monitored and controlled from London’s MI6 office via satellite surveillance. The end of the sequence sets up the film’s central premise, Bond as a rogue agent outside the comfort zone of the tech gadgetry we’re used to seeing – an organic, grassroots Bond, if you will, with only his wit and guile as his weapons.

This concept plays out in several forms throughout the film – at first working as a missing agent presumed dead; then after a devastating terrorist bomb, which destroys their building, the entire department is forced to work in a WWII bomb shelter with Cold War-era tools; and lastly in the third act a retreat of sorts to a completely threadbare Bond, as he confronts his enemies in a Straw Dogs-like siege in isolation.

Mendes’ employment of one of the world’s best cinematographers, Roger Deakins, is another signal of the reboot mindset of this Craig-era Bond. Casino Royale had already discarded most of the bubble-gum elements of the Brosnan Bond. But under Deakins' visual guidance we finally have a film with some memorable evocative imagery.

The Shanghai action scene is most memorable, but Deakins' underwater imagery and the fog shrouded field chase in Scotland are emotional and haunting. And almost every action scene is directed with seemingly in-camera reality. Though there were hundreds of personnel credited with CG effects, for the most part computer effects were invisible to my eye – an admirable production constraint considering the ‘anything’s possible’ abilities of today's CGI.

The final act is also an inspired climax. After a tremendous gunfight in downtown London, Mendes and his writers turn the film inward, engineering a smaller scale actioner, a confrontation which recalls the dramatic finale of High Noon or Witness, or as mentioned, Straw Dogs – references that complete Mendes' wholly cinematic Bond film.

***½

Thursday, 23 September 2010

American Beauty

American Beauty (1999) dir. Sam Mendes
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari

***1/2

By Alan Bacchus

How well does American Beauty stand up today? Remember back then when this multi-Oscar winner, TIFF audience award winner was shit hot? Sam Mendes was shit hot. Same with Kevin Spacey. As Spacey’s career declined (or at least diverged away from film, and more towards theatre) and Mendes career declined, not to mention Wes Bentley, Mena Suvari, so it seemed did the reputation of film. Now there seems to a large base of American Beauty haters out there. What gives?

Back in 1999, the film seemed to speak to a new generation of youth. Alan Ball’s brilliant script which told the story of several suburbanites searching for the meaning in their lives, meaning which came from different places for each of its characters.

Perhaps the source of the new hatred for this film comes from the fact that many of the characters, scenes, motifs, themes etc so quickly became part of pop culture lexicon - over exposure, if you will. The satirization of suburbia for instance was nothing new, but under Mendes/Ball’s skewed microscope we saw something new about ourselves we hadn’t seen before. Now, there are innumerable films and TV shows about the subject – arguably more on TV than Film (ie. Ball's own Six Feet Under, Weeds, The United States of Tara to name a few).

What American Beauty still manages to do brilliantly, even from today's cynical eyes, is manage the black comedy with melodramatic tragedy, both in healthy portions.

Wes Bentley’s iconoclastic performance still holds up. His eyes are still mesmerizing even if his character has now become a cliche. Though not a traditional ensemble film Mendes and Ball manage to make almost every supporting role unique, memorable and anything but stock characters. Think about the gay neighbours, both named Jim. These guys can now be considered the stock gay characters, but back in 1999, their characterization by Sam Robards and Scott Bakula were ahead of the curve and funny. It also disarms us to the reveal of Chris Cooper’s character’s homosexuality, which is not treated as a whimsical gay stereotype, but dark self-loathing.

Mena Suvari and Thora Birch can be considered ahead of the curve in terms of complex high school satirical characters. Kevin Spacey, unfortunately, doesn't. He didn’t seem to broaden his acting skills on film since Beauty and looking back his performance, despite the Oscar victory, it feels the most on the nose. His transition from meek ner-do-well to confident uber-mench is telegraphed without much subtly.

The dreamy existential tone works in moments. Jane’s lame pep rally cheerleading sequence is still funny on a number of levels – first the bored expression of Thora Birch exemplifies the role she feels she’s trying to fill as a teenager, and the reason why she becomes so taken with the mysterious neighbour. And Mendes' orchestration of Lester’s dream sequence, as edited by Tariq Anwar and Christopher Greenbury and shot by Conrad Hall Jr., still looks magnificent.

I could use without the Sunset Boulevard narration which opens and closes the film. It doesn’t ring as profound anymore, dated and forced, if anything. But of course Ball was going for an homage to those noir films of yesteryear, like Boulevard or Double Indemnity. Maybe ten years from now, it’ll become relevant and trendy again. American Beauty is still a very good film.

American Beauty is available on Blu-Ray from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment

Monday, 15 June 2009

Away We Go


Away We Go (2009) dir. Sam Mendes
Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Alison Janney, Maggie Gyllenhaal

**

After four films Sam Mendes, whose career seems to be dipped lower into the overwrought, overly dramatized Scott Rudin-type extravaganzas, “Away We Go” seems a conscious attempt of the man to free himself with an easy-going freeform breezy story.

Mendes employs some new different creative partners more versed in this kind of material, Michel Gondry's DOP Ellen Kuras, Sofia Coppola's editor Sarah Flack, newbie Alex Murdoch as composer, filling in for the usual Thomas Newman. The valiant effort just doesn't work though, and a palpable lack of conflict fails to generate significant emotional investment.

Inspired seemingly by the life experiences of the film’s screenwriter couple Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, “Away We Go” follows the journey of Burt and Verona (Krasinski and Rudolph) who are six months into their first pregnancy. After they discover Burt’s parents will be moving away to Belgium for 2 years, they're left with a feeling of homelessness. And so, on a whim, they embark on a roadtrip across the country, and even into Canada, to find their new home.

They test out a number of places by visiting some old friends and relatives around the country. No one is the same though since when Burt and Verona last saw them. Verona’s friend in Phoenix turns out to be an obnoxious self-loathing bitch, Burt’s childhood friend in Madison WI is a flaky hippie extremist, and Burt's brother's wife has just left him and their child alone. Each of these steps and misadventures allows them to discover their true home, which fills the void missing in their relationship.

Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski are perhaps cast too well. Rudolph, cute as a button with her freckles and six months prego belly, and Krasinski is basically Jim from The Office, charming as hell, the perfect husband, understanding, witty, good looking and grounded beyond belief.

So what’s wrong with these two? Nothing. And therein lies the problem. There’s very little to discover in Burt and Verona. They are the perfect couple, never bickering (the screenwriters even reference this in the dialogue), seemingly not hard up for money considering the time off work both are taking for the journey, and there's very little at stake. Burt and Verona need to be threatened by some external force, or even an internal personality or emotional conflict to overcome. Egger and Vida make it so easy for these two it becomes a journey of self-indulgence.

And so every quirky adventure seems to distract from the fact there is no emotional foundation for the story. It’s an assembly line of oddball characters introduced at each stop, written with the feeling they've been exported from other scripts: Burt’s wacky aloof parents played by Catherine O’Hara and Jeff Daniels, Alison Janney’s loud-mouthed irresponsible crack pot mother character Lily, and Maggie Gyllahaal/Josh Hamilton’s hippie eccentrics are repetitive gag generators. And it's the same joke-punchline execution from ‘the Office”: 1) show someone saying something inappropriate 2) cut to Krasinski/Rudolph silently reacting.

And so without a genuine foundation of character goals, all the Sundance indie-charm jumps out at us as trying too hard. The precious acoustic guitar music, second-hand store costuming, even the scratchy handdrawn poster feels uninspired and played out.

It’s a shame. Krasinski and Rudolph are so likeable, and Melanie Lynsky’s somber pole dancing, which becomes the backdrop for Chris Messina’s character’s dramatic strip club confession is a great scene.

Sam Mendes who so boldly jumped out of the gate in filmmaking seems to have lost his voice. He'll get it back, but "Away We Go" is not it.

Friday, 9 January 2009

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD


Revolutionary Road (2008) dir. Sam Mendes
Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates

***

Sam Mendes’ reteaming of the Titanic bunch – Kate and Leo – has resulted in a sometimes inspired sometimes overworked tragedy about the disillusionment of a marriage.

The idea of filming a 48 year old novel which skewers the soullessness of suburban conformity seemed way out of date. Old news really. Why go to a place where so many filmmakers have gone to before? But Richard Yates 1962 prize-winning novel seemed to be the literary high mark on the subject, and so maybe the team commanded by the master of literary adaptations Scott ‘Superproducer’ Rudin could turn this into the definitive film on the subject.

It’s the 1950’s in an unnamed suburban town. Frank and April Wheeler are married with two kids – a bickering couple who can break into a screaming match of hateful words in an instant. Both April and Frank seem to hate their saccharine existence – Frank commuting to his soul-sucking desk job every day and April tending to her two kids like what is expected of her. Its April who takes the initiative to find a solution and mend their marriage. She proposes to relocate to Paris and start a new life. The plans reinvigorate the couple and everything seems on the right track.

Despite the shocked reactions of their friends the Wheelers are resolute in their plans. But slowly events transpire which challenge the ability to keep their plans afloat and thus their marriage.

Though Kate and Leo share equal billing, it’s Kate’s film. April is the driving engine of the action. We empathize with her predicament and understand how the emotional tightrope she’s walking can suddenly cause the outbursts of anger and tears. Their situations are accessible to any married couple. How do you keep both people happy in a relationship with so many expectations attached to it? Occasional melodramatic contrivances in the first half are easily overlooked because we desperately want the Wheelers to be happy and achieve their goals. But with so much working against them the tension becomes palpable and intense.

The film goes from good to great when Michael Shannon enters the film. For those who don’t know Michael Shannon, you should. He’s one of the finest character actors working today. His work on indies “Bug” and “Shotgun Stories” is near legendary. Shannon plays John, the insane son of April’s neighbours. In a couple of powerful scenes John manages to read the dynamic of the couple with pinpoint accuracy and expose the subterfuge which clouds their relationship. Shannon’s performance is simply phenomenal.

Unfortunately the film drowns itself under a number of show-off scenes of shouting and angry destructive behaviour from Di Caprio. Leo’s showcase scene of fury in the third act lacks any truth or believability. It reeks of a ‘movie scene’ – written and performed not out of truth of character but of the needs for heightened drama. The film never recovers and settles into a predictable and over-stylized finale.

Which brings us back to Yates’ original novel (which I haven’t read). Call me crazy, but wouldn’t this film be much more powerful if told in the present? The politics and culture of the 50’s do not affect the dynamic of April and Frank’s relationship. The conundrums and conflicts faced by April and Frank are the same ones many couples face today. And so setting the film over 50 years ago distances us from the pain.

As the film unraveled I kept thinking about Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler” which stayed truthful to its characters and never went outside of it’s own reality. “Revolutionary Road” comes to close to honesty but in the end comes off as entertaining fakery. Enjoy.