mppullar

I must admit, I've been quite a bit of a fan of George Clooney for some years now, dating, I think, back to when I first saw him in "O Brother, Where Art Thou". I can't remember if I'd seen him in anything before then, but I couldn't resist his charisma and comic timing in that movie, qualities that I then went on to appreciate in films like "Intolerable Cruelty" and even "Three Kings". Clooney was, I realised, a film-star in the Classical Hollywood sense - dynamic, entertaining, vibrant, witty, sickeningly good-looking (I'm sure I'll never be able to look that good when I'M grey) - a truly energetic screen-presence. When he made his directorial debut in "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", we saw glimpses of something deeper, and his working relationship with Steven Soderbergh began to evolve, seeing the two co-producing numerous movies, some innovative and intelligent, others just generally enjoyable. They also made "Solaris" and "Ocean's Twelve" together, two movies which couldn't be less alike if they tried. Anyone that saw "Solaris" (all three of us) would have noticed that there was a strange evolution happening. Clooney was becoming a bit more brooding, a bit more fragile, a bit like the change in Fred Astaire from "Shall We Dance" to "On The Beach". The man had some deep thoughts going on in that prematurely grey head, and as self-deprecating as he continued to be in the press (one of his most admirable qualities), he was starting to suggest that he was more than we had thought.

And now we have "Good Night and Good Luck", a film that would be a masterpiece from anyone, but is all the more precious, all the more rewarding, for knowing where it came from. The man who was first noticed on our movie screens as the third Batman has now emerged as a bona-fide artist, as an actor, director, and, for the first time, screenwriter, and has four Oscar nominations to show for it (sadly, no acting nomination for his beautiful performance here as Fred Friendly, but I'm going to have to check out "Syriana" when it comes out in Australia to see the performance that earned him a Golden Globe and will hopefully win him the Best Supporting Actor Oscar). This is a stunning movie - beautifully filmed, scripted, paced, performed. All actors involved give their all - and what a cast to see giving their all! Patricia Clarkson is, naturally, a standout, as is the often hard-done-by Robert Downey Jr, and Ray Wise, who I remember fondly as Leland Palmer from his "Twin Peaks" days, gives a performance that will threaten to bring tears to even the most hardened viewer's eyes.

But this is not just an amazing work of art. If it was just a beautifully filmed, acted and scripted movie with an intriguing story, brilliantly told, it would still deserve to make every "Best of 2005" list, but this not just a brilliant movie - it is an important movie, and, thank heavens, one that is confident enough in its importance not to feel the need to become an Important Movie. Clooney has a message, but he doesn't bludgeon us with it, or declare too loudly that he needs to be heard. He speaks softly, and earnestly, and eloquently, and is thus heard for the merits of what he says and how he says it. His message is that of his hero, Ed Murrow, a message that was relevant in the 1950s, and is just as relevant today, if not more - a message about the responsibility of the media to communicate truth, to challenge the status quo, to give the public the information they deserve, even if it isn't the information they want. It is a message that lies at the heart of democracy, a philosophy that all western societies currently feign adherence to, although failing to realise that, without free and reliable information being distributed to the people, the people themselves cannot make informed decisions as to how they should be governed. So long as they are lied to, and encouraged to think as little as possible, they can never know what is right, or know how well they are being governed - and this is the message that Clooney and company declare loud and clear. The truth must always be told, and each side of every story must receive a fair and equal hearing, for the sake of the truth, for the sake of liberty. What a message to be declared in 2005, and what a spectacular job Clooney does of declaring it - with humility, intelligence, caution, clarity and heart.

Everyone - I repeat, everyone - should see "Good Night and Good Luck". This is a movie of compassion, intelligence, grace, craftsmanship and significance the likes of which I have not seen in a long time. To be completely honest, I don't think a movie of this level of importance has been made in my lifetime, and I've had a few months since seeing the movie to confirm that I still feel this way. This film has the urgency and poise of a film like Robert Wise's "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or Kramer's "On the Beach" - a film that demands to be listened to, and heard. Everything about this movie works, and everything about it is brilliant. I wish there was a way of conveying that, when I give this film 10 out of 10, I would even like it to be placed above almost any other film to which I would assign that rating. Numbers are not enough to communicate how incredible it is, nor are words.

Mr Clooney, thankyou.

In the eighties, John Duigan was one of Australia's most innovative and charming film-makers. Although he hasn't done much of note in recent years, "Flirting" (1991) and "Lawn Dogs" (1997) are 90s examples of his brilliance, and his forthcoming film, "Head in the Clouds", sounds promising. "Lawn Dogs", with its magnificent acting, screenplay (sadly not by Duigan) and stunning cinematography, is probably his masterpiece, but for sheer experimentalism and surprising pathos, "One Night Stand" is hard to ignore, especially considering it was made in 1984.

The story is very simple - actually, there isn't much of one. A group of four people sit around in an abandoned Sydney Opera House, worrying about the end of the world. But Duigan uses this merely as a point of departure. With some of the most interesting, and subtle, uses of flashback that I've seen in a while, nice acting, and clever uses of "Short Memory" by Midnight Oil and Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", Duigan has come up with quite a gem. It doesn't have any of the usual trappings of Australian film - excessive "larikanism", lack of subtlety and depth, cinematic blandness or an irritating effort to be noticeably "Australian" (despite the potentially cumbersome use of Sydney landmarks) - and has so many things that many American and world movies lack. "One Night Stand" is a film with the potential to surprise in an age when we so often think we've seen it all. It's dated a little bit - quite a bit, actually - but, well, it was 1984, so you can't exactly expect it to look like it was made yesterday. But in terms of what it achieves - emotionally, politically, cinematically - it is avant-garde in the truest sense. Not unwatchable, not difficult, just truly ahead of the game. And so few films have really caught up in the 20 years since.

I just hope that "Head in the Clouds" can show that Duigan still is, rather than just was, an amazing film-maker. More people need to see "Lawn Dogs". More people need to see the Danny Emberling films. And, judging by the seriously low user-rating, and startling absence of user comments on IMDb, it seems very clear that more people need to see "One Night Stand".

I should start off by saying that I don't like Ridley Scott. I have admittedly only seen the German dubbed version of "1492" while overseas, and my German wasn't really good enough to appreciate it fully - but, while it was visually impressive, it didn't seem to be much more than a self-important, grandiose epic. My understanding is that many of Ridley's films fall into this trap. There are exceptions, I know - "Blade Runner" is supposed to be a masterpiece, and I'm not sure why I haven't seen it. But, as a rule, I just have no desire to see Russell Crowe play Gluteus Maximus, or watch Josh Hartnett be wasted in yet another Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-feast.

SO...when I saw that Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohmann, all actors that I love, were going to be in the new Ridley Scott film, I was certainly not excited - verging on despair would be a more accurate description. But then the reviews began to come in, and I was forced to reconsider what I expected. It sounded as if, for whatever reason, Ridley had decided to take a break from his usual films to make something much more intimate, taut and touching - it almost sounded as if "Matchstick Men" would be worth checking out.

So yesterday I watched it. And I have to say that it was one of the best films of the year. Packed to the brim with surprises (but which, unlike in films like "Boxing Helena" or "Wild Things", were genuinely clever, genuinely suspenseful), with some stunning cinematography, clever use of editing, music, set design, even costume, and a truly touching (not at all sentimental or cloying) script, "Matchstick Men" is already streets ahead of most mainstream films to hit our cinemas at the moment. Add to that the sheer genius of Cage, Rockwell and Lohmann, all giving performances that rate among their finest, and you get a surprising, memorable and provocative film. If it were only a crime caper film, it would be much more tense and intelligent than most. If it were only an emotional drama, it would beat almost every other film of its kind for avoiding heavy-handed sentiment and genuinely sticking in your head and heart. Put these two together and you get a film that really SHOULDN'T have worked (who ever thought of putting "White Oleander" and "Nikita" together?), but it DOES work - it works marvellously. Perhaps Scott's style of direction could be a little more experimental, but it does have moments of fascinating experimentation which (again) put it ahead of any other film of its kind. And really, you just have to respect it for working. Don't be a genre purist when watching this film; and don't be cynically hardened to the possibility of it affecting you emotionally. If you do either of these, you will be unable to enjoy it. Let it be what it is, and respect it for doing what it does so well. And let it touch you, because it will if you allow it.

I can't stop thinking about the relationships in this film, about Lohmann's beautiful performance, Cage's surprising restraint, and Rockwell's incredible sense of style. This film was beautiful - it really was. Four and a half out of five. (Excellent work, Ridley. But I'm still not going to watch the rest of your work.)