Review - Manderlay (2005 - Dir. Lars Von Trier)

I wasn't aware there was a sequel to Dogville. But when I started to watch Manderlay - another film by Lars Von Trier - I thought that the style felt very similar. Ah, but there's no Nicole Kidman, can't be a sequel. So I checked it out and found that Grace, played by Kidman in Dogville, is played by Bryce Dallas Howard and Manderlay is indeed a sequel. Ooh.

Surely the aspect that will have split viewers of Dogville has to be the style. If you couldn't get into that film due to the visuals, then don't bother with Manderlay. But I really liked the style and would recommend it, with one proviso: I love theatre. The music and sets are virtually non-existent. Characters knock on imaginary doors to the accompaniment of a five year old banging on a wood block in true school play style. Rooms are marked out by lines on the floor. As with minimalist theatre, the imagination has to be accessed and used frequently. I realised at many times during the film that I was seeing things that weren't there. For example, when some crops were harvested from a field, I saw those crops in all of their splendour lit by a stunning sunset. But I never did. All the actors are doing is pretending, like in lunchtime TV programme Let's Pretend. The great thing about this is that everyone will watch this film differently. A bit like reading a book.

The theatre style makes the film very intimate. The characters appear to be in the same room as the viewer. And unlike the majority of theatre, the screen is filled with a multitude of top world-class actory types: Willem Dafoe, Danny Glover and Lauren Bacall to name a few (let's face facts, the best you get at Doncaster Civic Theatre is Christopher Biggins). So this is theatre of the highest order.

But of course it isn't theatre. It's a film. And it does a few things that theatre can't: the space that the actors perform in is huge, jump cuts are used frequently and the camera can whizz up into the air way above the action. It also shows things that happen in different locations at the same time and flashbacks are occasionally employed. 

So Manderlay uses film and theatre as its palette. But what about the story? Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) arrives at cotton plantation Manderlay, driven by her gangster father (Willem Dafoe). There she finds slavery still in full swing despite the abolishment seventy year ago. Grace, with a contingent of her father's gangster chums, is left to sort things out and free the slaves. 

Manderlay deals with the theme of whether slaves were ready for freedom and more importantly whether America was ready to treat them as equals. Wilhelm (Danny Glover) isn't really convinced that the USA will be ready for them in a hundred year's time (that would work out to be roughly 2030). And although things have moved on, with the first black president in power, I can see his point (the KKK is still in operation after all). Not that the UK is much better in the tolerance of other cultures stakes, with the rise of right wing extremists, such as the BNP and EDL. When the final credits appear over a photo montage, it's up to you to make up your own mind.

If you fancy a night at the theatre, with a thought provoking story, but you really can't be bothered to get tarted up - maybe donning a cummerbund in the process - and leave the comfort of your home, this could be right up your street.
7/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
Dogville, Mississippi Burning.

Review - Van Diemen’s Land (2009 - Dir. Jonathan auf der Heide)

This is a gloomy, tense depiction of the infamous Australian convict Alexander Pearce’s escape into the Tasmanian wilderness with his gang of convict buddies. Based on a true story, it doesn’t take long before the guys realise there is no food in this harsh and challenging environment and they must survive through cannibalism. Don’t expect any empathy or justification for their actions like the Andes plane crash film Alive, this is an altogether more brutal tale of the survival of the fittest.

I was expecting something akin to those Ray Mears reconstructions when I purchased this DVD. The ones where hapless tourists find themselves lost in the woods and have to dig up roots and filter the goodness out of bear droppings to survive. Van Dieman’s Land is no fluffy tail of bush-craft however. This is a dark, claustrophobic piece of Australian cinema with a tangible sense of fear running through every frame.

The soundtrack is stark and droning, the imagery is shadowy and oppressive, and the characters are dehumanised by the dirt, the cold and big bushy beards that make then difficult to differentiate. The most disturbing part of the film however, is when they decide to kill an unlucky member of the gang to form the basis of their next non-vegetarian friendly stew. This is invariably carried out by sneaking up behind the unfortunate comrade and whacking them with a sickening blow from the back of an axe. The accompanying sound effects and body convulsions are some of the most shocking scenes I’ve witnessed recently outside of Antichrist. It’s not pleasant, but after this the scenes of stew munching seem tame by comparison, although I doubt Linda McCartney would agree.

It’s another grueller to sit through and would seriously benefit from some humour, hope or even someone doing magic tricks or juggling. There is nothing positive on show for humanity in Van Diemen’s Land, only a selfish and steadfast will to survive. Maybe evlkeith will love the copious tracking shots of dense forest and undergrowth, but for me the film was a soulless piece of historical grit that depressed rather than inspired.

Maybe they should do a remake with Ben Fogle, Ray Mears and Bear Grylls to lighten the mood?
3/10

Doccortex



If you like this you could also try:
Alive, Cannibal Apocalypse, Cannibal Holocaust.

Review - Marie Antoinette (2006 - Dir. Sofia Coppola

I occasionally enjoy some historical drama, purely because the only things we studied in GCSE history in the 1980's Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire were trade unions, the Peterloo massacre and the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Consequently, I understand nothing about wider British history, let alone its European and world counterparts, and recently films have helped to plug the gaps in my knowledge.

I had high hopes as the director and lead actor combination (Coppola/Dunst) had previously produced the excellent Virgin Suicides, but my initial optimism proved a little misplaced. Marie Antoinette gets caught in the crossfire of not knowing what it wants to be. Is it a romantic comedy, an alternative view of history or a serious costume drama? It ends up being non of these things and ends up a distinct oddity. Coppola has admitted that her representation of events is intentionally stylised and modernised to increase our connection with the characters, but this still doesn't hold water.

On the positive side, it's a visually stunning film, but scratch the surface and you are left with more questions than answers. Dunst almost pulls the show around by proving gorgeously coquettish, however she's let down by the clashing range of American accents on offer in regency era France, some one dimensional male love interest(s), and by the casting of Alan Partridge as some sort of wooden butler/advisor. The soundtrack is interesting if equally bizarre, with Gang of Four, Siouxsie and Bow Wow Wow sitting shoulder to shoulder with Vivaldi and the Aphex Twin!

It's not all bad and at least held my attention for the duration, but I have little insight into the life of the real Marie Antoinette other than the fact that she didn't actually ever say 'Let them eat cake.' The whole thing could have been improved in Alan Partridge had been allowed to shout 'Eat my goal!' a couple of times. Or better still 'Eat my cake!' 

3/10

Doccortex

If you like this you could also try:
Virgin Suicides, The Lost Prince, Paris, Je T'Aime.

Review - The Hindenburg (1975 - Dir. Robert Wise)

I watched this film purely based on the fact that Albert Whitlock was responsible for the special visual effects. (I won't pretend that I was particularly interested in it for its historical value.) I first became aware of Albert Whitlock from the extras on The Thing (1982). He was responsible for the matte paintings in that film and very gorgeous they were too.

His team's work on The Hindenburg is stunning considering that they were working with paint and glass for the most part to create effects. (For a more in-depth look at the effects have a look at this excellent article: nzpetesmatteshot.) I'm fairly used to spotting effects shots and some are fairly obvious in that you know they didn't build a full size Hindenburg so any shots of the airship were effects shots. What amazed me was that some shots of the Hindenburg weren't miniatures, they were simply a glass painting of the ship moving over a painting of the sky. I would never have known this from my initial viewing. There were many other components of shots that I didn't realise were effects. Okay, some of the overlaid cloud effects look a bit on the ropey side now but it was 1975. Many effects are seamless even (especially?) compared to CGI. Albert Whitlock is a genius.

That's enough of my matte painting giddiness. What's it all about? It's about the Hindenburg, funnily enough. A nazi airship from the thirties that - surely, this isn't a spoiler? - blew up in a spectacular fashion. Nobody knows why it exploded but for dramatic reasons the story concerns itself with sabotage. This rings true as it would have been a serious embarrassment for Hitler that a symbol of nazi power could be brought down so easily. Amazingly, more than half of the passengers survived, including a dog if the film is to be believed.

I had to re-watch the start of the film because I spent all of my time thinking, 'What's he/she been in?' It is a veritable feast of top stars: the always great George C. Scott (Anatomy of a Murder), the very entertaining Anne Bancroft (The Elephant Man), William Atherton (Ghostbusters), Charles Durning (Dark Night of the Scarecrow), Rene Auberjonois (Deep Space 9, Soap), Katherine Helmond (Soap, again) and Richard Dysart (The Thing). Amongst others.

The story moves along at a nice pace. The editing is rather good. In fact the whole production is very professional and engaging. The ending left me severely mouth-slapped. I knew what was coming but I didn't expect it to revert to black and white and intercut between the 1975 shots and original footage taken of the disaster in 1937. It only took sixteen seconds to go down, but it is edited very cleverly and the time is stretched to a good few minutes. That's what you paid your money for after all.

Great film, (you can tell I enjoyed it because I instantly went and read up on the history of the Hindenburg itself - and I am a known history-hater) shame it's not on Blu-ray yet to fully appreciate all of those lovely matte shots. Let's all stand to attention and salute Albert Whitlock, The Master.

8/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
Earthquake, The Birds, Dune, The Thing (all containing work by Albert Whitlock).