So, like many people (yes I am implying that you probably have) I went to see the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince the other day. I went in (as for some reason i do with each release within the franchise) with fairly high hopes. The trailer gave the impression that this film would be returning to Alfonso Cuaron's darker and more brooding envisioning of the novel. I also got the impression that his would be more of an 'epic' than the previous films, with some very impressive crane shots over a broiling sea looking onto a huge cave.
On these two accounts I was fairly dissapointed. At times the film does hold true to the more sinister tone necessary for the adaptation e.g. when Katie Bell is dangling in the air screaming. However this tone is constantly deconstructed by the painfully cringeworthy comic relief. Most notably in a scene where Ron, Hermione and Harry are engaged in some bloody rubbish banter about Dumbledore being old and then laughing about just how old he is. No Perrier awards here. This brings me to another problem (not really with the films but with the books), it seems as if J.K. Rowling only has the intellectual capacity to portray adolescence/growing up is by showing people "snogging" (note how many times they say "snogging" in the film, completely absurd). None of the characters really seem to develop in any other way than being interested in the opposite sex. You would have thought their senses of humour would have come along alot more than laughing at how old old men are? Apparently not. This ground on me as I was reading the books and is even more obvious when transposed into the film. HOWEVER this cannot be blamed on the film merely on J.K. "they see me" Rowling (get it?).
The direction was slick and on the whole pretty faultless (as you would expect from a film of such high economic calibre), not pushing the limits just lilting along nicely and comfortably with the plot. The film is certainly a good adaptation of the book (coming from a guy who was/kind of still is a genuine fan of the books) but I think that watching the film highlighted problems with the series (such as the aforementioned lack of real character development).
One thing that kept me very entertained throughout the entire film was Daniel Radcliffe's absolutely dreadful acting. I feel really bad for the franchise- it was impossible to tell that the young Daniel's acting abilities would hardly develop at all. Putting Radcliffe directly next to the mighty Michael Gambon (a very skilled Shakesperian actor) seems cruel at best considering he can only really act a few emotions; bemused, confused, happy, sad or extremely angry. All of which he passes off with the skill of a young child in nursery school who has just been told very briefly what the definition of these emotions are.
(look at him trying to be serious)
This all said, the film is ok. I would be surprised if anybody hated it and I would be concerned if anybody loved it.
Which brings me along nicely to another film beginning with 'H' (email me if you find this tenuous link offensive). Hunger.
Hunger is the directorial debut of Steve McQueen.
Not the Baseball loving, Nazi hating Steve McQueen but the artist turned Director Steve McQueen (confusing a know). The fact that he was an artist before a director completely shows in this film. Winning the prestigious award for best directorial debut at Cannes- The Camera d'or, McQueen really flaunts his artistic prowess very impressively but without casting an authorial shadow over the film which at times I find can cloud the messages at the heart of the most impressive of films.
Hunger is about the IRA prisoner's poor treatment within prisons during the late 80's and more largely about the IRA's fight to be granted different sentences for politically influenced crimes. the fact that the subject matter is very close to home makes this film all the more engaging and relatable to.
As the award 'Camera d'or' would suggest the camerawork is literally stunning. The length of the camera shots and the reluctance to cut adds a sense of calm to the film which is brutally fractured by the scenes of shocking violence. The juxtaposition between the mundane and the extraordinary throughout the film really drives the message of the film and the brutal treatment of the prisoners home. There is alot more I would like to say about this film from an artistic standpoint but want to refrain from sounding pretentious.
Having studied film for a year at Exeter I have seen some of the best of 'arthouse' cinema and some of the worst of it. Hunger manages to identify itself very well with the European cinematic sensibility through the unconventional and very limited use of dialogue, the stunning cinematography, the fractured progression of the narrative (it is only clear who the protagonist is about half way through the film) and the existential drive to find some kind of purpose that is found within the film. The use of the camera within Hunger hugely reminded me of Tsai Ming Liang's work which one of my lecturer's is writing a book on dubbed 'Tsai Ming Liang and a Cinema of Slowness'. I find Tsai Ming Liang's work very beautiful to look at but often very dull, disengaging and bordering on extremely pretentious.
Hunger manages to capture all that is best with the 'arthouse' circuit whilst retaining the elements that make a film fundamentally engaging to a mass audience. The representation of masculinity really reminded me of Scorsese's earlier work (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull) and the use of tracking shots/lack of dialogue draws heavily from Kubrick.
Again, this can be placed in one of the few films that has made me stop, think and really admire what I just had the privelege to watch throughout the credits. A must see. Do it, it's really good.
Other films (old and new) that I recently watched again which I would recommend:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2046
The Squid and The Whale
Punch Drunk Love
(look at him trying to be serious)
This all said, the film is ok. I would be surprised if anybody hated it and I would be concerned if anybody loved it.
Which brings me along nicely to another film beginning with 'H' (email me if you find this tenuous link offensive). Hunger.
Hunger is the directorial debut of Steve McQueen.
Not the Baseball loving, Nazi hating Steve McQueen but the artist turned Director Steve McQueen (confusing a know). The fact that he was an artist before a director completely shows in this film. Winning the prestigious award for best directorial debut at Cannes- The Camera d'or, McQueen really flaunts his artistic prowess very impressively but without casting an authorial shadow over the film which at times I find can cloud the messages at the heart of the most impressive of films.
Hunger is about the IRA prisoner's poor treatment within prisons during the late 80's and more largely about the IRA's fight to be granted different sentences for politically influenced crimes. the fact that the subject matter is very close to home makes this film all the more engaging and relatable to.
As the award 'Camera d'or' would suggest the camerawork is literally stunning. The length of the camera shots and the reluctance to cut adds a sense of calm to the film which is brutally fractured by the scenes of shocking violence. The juxtaposition between the mundane and the extraordinary throughout the film really drives the message of the film and the brutal treatment of the prisoners home. There is alot more I would like to say about this film from an artistic standpoint but want to refrain from sounding pretentious.
Having studied film for a year at Exeter I have seen some of the best of 'arthouse' cinema and some of the worst of it. Hunger manages to identify itself very well with the European cinematic sensibility through the unconventional and very limited use of dialogue, the stunning cinematography, the fractured progression of the narrative (it is only clear who the protagonist is about half way through the film) and the existential drive to find some kind of purpose that is found within the film. The use of the camera within Hunger hugely reminded me of Tsai Ming Liang's work which one of my lecturer's is writing a book on dubbed 'Tsai Ming Liang and a Cinema of Slowness'. I find Tsai Ming Liang's work very beautiful to look at but often very dull, disengaging and bordering on extremely pretentious.
Hunger manages to capture all that is best with the 'arthouse' circuit whilst retaining the elements that make a film fundamentally engaging to a mass audience. The representation of masculinity really reminded me of Scorsese's earlier work (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull) and the use of tracking shots/lack of dialogue draws heavily from Kubrick.
Again, this can be placed in one of the few films that has made me stop, think and really admire what I just had the privelege to watch throughout the credits. A must see. Do it, it's really good.
Other films (old and new) that I recently watched again which I would recommend:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2046
The Squid and The Whale
Punch Drunk Love
No comments:
Post a Comment