MYST POST #3: Belle

   

   This movie caught my attention as I was wading through movie trailers.  It was an official selection at the Toronto International Film Festival and was directed by Amma Asante, also known for writing/directing "A Way of Life."  The movie follows the story of Dido Elizabeth Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), a mixed race woman living with her aristocratic relatives in 18th Century England. Although Dido is technically a part of the family and has rank, her race provides for many subjects of controversy.  She is not allowed to dine with guests but is too high rank to dine with the servants, for example.  At the same time we are following Dido and her cousin  Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon)'s attempts to find suitable husbands, Dido's great-uncle Lord Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is ruling on a case regarding the drowning of diseased slaves aboard a cargo ship.  He can either rule in favor of the ship's crew and ensure slavery continues, or rule in favor of the insurers and make a huge step in the abolition of slavery and the increased value of all human life, regardless of race.  Dido begins to come to terms with herself and begins becoming more active in the abolitionist movement once she meets John Davinier (Sam Reid), an aspiring lawyer and active abolitionist.  Dido then must choose between marrying the aristocratic Oliver Ashford (James Norton) and reaffirming her social imbalance, or marrying Davinier and reaffirming her position as an abolitionist.

      Let's just start by saying Gugu Mbatha-Raw knows what she's doing as an actress.  Her acting starts very subtle and reserved, just as Dido's character starts, and gets more and more passionate as the film progresses, just as Dido does.  She is so convincing as a woman lost in a world that does not accept her.  Kudos to her, man, she was what made the movie possible.  And it was also nice to see Tom Felton again (playing James Ashford, brother of Oliver) after his role as Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter.  He plays the odious, close-minded, unlikable scoundrel once again (constantly calling Dido repulsive and even at one point attempting to harm her), and pulls it off just as he did before.  All other actors were outshone by Mbatha-Raw, but played their parts respectably.

(Tom Felton and Gugu Mbatha-Raw)

     There is nothing intensely stylistic about this film.  There are valuable close-ups that allow us to see an important props.  There are wide shots that allow us to see the sprawling parties.  The defining characteristic of this film is that the camera is almost always on Dido.  It is a film about her, after all, so she is almost always in frame.  We have the obligatory conversations between other characters, but otherwise Dido is the focus.  There are also many close ups of Dido's hands, whether she is playing piano or fiddling.  Her hands are very pale, so sometimes it's even hard to tell she is mixed race at all.  That's an interesting point, whether intentional or not, because Dido's hands are the same as anyone's hands; they are used for the same things.  Beyond that, there are many perspective shots, angled to show us what Dido is looking at.  This allows us to see things as she would see them, and really feel connected to her.  All in all, this film is very much designed to link us directly with Dido, since it is primarily about her.  Meaning the film relies very much on the acting of Mbatha-Raw, which was in fact the highlight of the film.

     One scene which I though was constructed very well is the scene where Dido's suitor, Oliver Ashford, is introduced to John Davinier.  Dido and Oliver have tracked down the string quartet that is playing, and the camera pans down from a view of the strings to Davinier's face as he turns around, so we recognize him.  Then we see Dido and Oliver as Davinier must be seeing them, Oliver placing a hand on Dido's face.  Dido then looks up almost directly at the camera.  We then see Davinier's face in between the shoulders of Dido and Oliver, splitting the two of them in the frame and interrupting the closeness Dido had to Oliver.  We only see Dido's expression as Davinier approaches, showing her shock and awe.  This leads to several close-ups of their faces and their clear attraction to each other.  The camera frame widens to include Oliver as Dido remembers he is there and goes to introduce them.  In this shot, Davinier's back is still in frame, larger than Ashford, showing that he takes up more of Dido's attention than Ashford does.  Other characters, extras, pass in front of the camera, reminding us that this is in a public place where they can be observed.  This happens just as Dido remembers to introduce the two, meaning she has realized where she is an her focus shifts from just Davinier.  As Oliver tips his hat to Davinier, a medium shot is used to include all three characters, accenting the distinct space between Davinier and the other two.  This encompasses the societal difference between the characters, seeing as Davinier is lower class than the two of them and is not a part of that aristocracy.  In one scene, Dido's two possible love interests have been introduced, and the scene has shown Dido's attraction to Davinier yet his clear distance from the world she lives in.  A major point of tension in the story has been shown solely though the camera angles and shots, and that is why this scene is so important.

       The movie itself is actually based on the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle.  Her family relations have been incorporated accurately into the film.  Throughout the film, images of blacks being lower and subservient in paintings are used.  So when Dido and her cousin Elizabeth are painted in the same portrait as equals, it is an important moment in the film.  There is in fact a painting of Elizabeth Murray and Dido Elizabeth Belle, which is what sparked the film.  It hangs in Scone Palace today.  As far as historical accuracy, the film was pretty solid.  Although the incredible and lasting affect Dido and Davinier had on Lord Mansfield's view of slavery was stretched a bit.  Davinier was not a lawyer in real life, but a servant.  Lord Mansfield was, however, against slavery.  Much of the dialogue used actually came from his rulings (although it was not on the Zong case, but a different case about slavery).  Lord Mansfield did contribute to the abolition of slavery.  If you're still interested, links to several articles where I found my information in can be found here :
(Belle: was British history really this black and white?)
(Dido Belle: the artworld enigma who inspired a movie)

(The actual painting of Dido Elizabeth Belle

and Elizabeth Murray)

      All in all, if you like films about the social hierarchy of 18th Century England, you'd enjoy this.  But seriously, this is a very interesting film that gives a very realistic view of the struggles of being the odd one out in the crowd.  The film itself reminded me a little of "Pride and Prejudice" with Keira Knightley and Donald Sutherland, just in the way it was filmed, in the place it was set, and in the story-line style.  It seemed a bit Jane Austen-esque. It was a touch predictable, but Mbatha-Raw's performance makes it all worth it.  I'd give it a go, if I were you. 3/5 stars.

Creating a 30's Film

     As part of our exploration of  1930's Hollywood, our group in class decided to create a feel-good blockbuster including big-name actors and musical numbers.  Synopsis follows:

     After the tragic death of his wife, Floyd is laid off from work by the bank.  Struggling to stay afloat financially, Floyd and his daughter Ruthie travel to  New York to stay with Floyd’s sister-in-law.  While singing and dancing on the street to cheer her father up, Ruthie is discovered by a Broadway producer.  She becomes famous very quickly, and meets Sherri, a dancer in the shows.  Both Ruthie and Floyd spend more and more time together with Sherri, and eventually she and Floyd fall in love. This is a heartwarming tale of the familial bonds between father and daughter, and the ability to pick up and move on.

      This movie is entirely meant as an escapist film to bring people's minds off the hardships of the Great Depression.  People wanted to get away from the bad things for a while and just sit and enjoy a feel-good movie.  And just to appease the masses, we added in a negative view of the banks (seeing as Floyd was laid off by one).  We didn't go so much for a message as for a "life is good, everything's okay" type of feel.  So, of course, it's a melodramatic film with musical elements.  And somehow it seems wrong to have a film like that without Shirley Temple.

      The first thing we really decided on, before a plot or director or anything else, was that we wanted Shirley Temple as the star.  That limits our studio to 20th Century Fox, known for their melodramas.  Fox was also known for it's cheesy American films, which is basically what our film is.  We can't really market this film in other countries, since it's mostly about Broadway, which is very American, and this film is also as cheesy as it gets.  So Fox is a good choice.  We want this movie to be big and expensive (especially since Temple is involved), a giant blockbuster that everyone knows about.  Fox would work for that as well.  

       We then narrowed down who we wanted in our cast to pair with Shirley Temple.  We picked Spencer Tracy to pair with Shirley Temple.  In 1935, Tracy was signed with 20th Century until he was later picked up by MGM.  He never achieved stardom under 20th Century and wasn't very well-known, so we figure this film was his attempt to become famous.  We also picked Vivien Leigh to play the dancer, Sherri, due to her reputation as a beautiful actress.  We figure that even though at this time she was living in London, she came to America to visit her significant other, Laurence Olivier, and happened to hear of this film (same way she ended up in "Gone With the Wind").  To direct this stellar cast, we wanted Frank Capra to direct since we know him from other feel-good cutsie movies like "It Happened One Night" and "It's a Wonderful Life."  However, we also know he is tight with Columbia.  To counteract that, we figure Fox traded Capra for John Ford so each studio could film with each famous director.  Columbia wanted Ford to do a Western, and Fox wanted Capra for our film.  We know that this film is going to rely heavily on sound, since it is about show business and Broadway, so we needed someone good to work with sound.  We chose W.D. Flick, who worked with Shirley Temple on "Our Little Girl."

(Spencer Tracy and Shirley Temple)

      Since this film is most certainly going to be under the limitations of the Hays Code, we thought out exactly how that will effect our film.  We can't show the death of the mother, so it will only have to be mentioned in passing.  And once Floyd falls in love with Sherri, any kiss they share can only be a maximum of 3 seconds.  All romantic elements have to be toned down to be very innocent.  Not only that, but all the dancers in the Broadway shows have to be conservatively dressed so as not to be deemed offensive.
      As a lover of Independent and Art-House films, this kind of movie goes against everything I really appreciate about a movie.  Most likely it will sell, but it isn't a movie I would want to make.  If I had worked alone, I probably would've chosen to make a more experimental, art-sy film.  I probably also would've cast Loretta Young as Sherri, since Tracy was dating her in 1935, and that on-screen chemistry would've been a nice element.  But all-in-all, I'm very happy with how this project turned out.  We worked hard, we have a stellar cast and crew, and we understand Hollywood in the 1930s!

MYST POST #2: 50/50

        I'm a big fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anna Kendrick, so I figured I'd give this movie a go.  The movie focuses on Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27 year old who finds out he has a rare type of cancer in his spine.  It describes his interactions between his best friend (Seth Rogen), his smothering mother (Anjelica Huston), his father who has Alzheimer's disease (Serge Houde), his flaky girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his new therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they all come to terms with the fact that he has cancer.  The title itself represents Adam's 50/50 chance of survival.  What results is a very honest and realistic portrayal of living with cancer.
   

       Of course, that doesn't mean the film is entirely serious.  Seth Rogen, known for comedy, manages to make light of the tough stuff and provides the comedic relief to the story.  Although practically all his lines have a comedic undertone, he ultimately comes off as a very considerate friend to Adam.  I always appreciate Anna Kendrick's acting, especially in "Pitch Perfect" and "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World," as it is usually very amusing.  She provides a lot of the comedy to the story as well.  So all in all not a completely sad film.
      One of the stylist choices I appreciated about the movie was the use of blur.  Whenever Adam is high on medication or, occasionally, drugs (give him a break, he does have cancer), the camera usually blurs in and out to give the effect of his view, being constantly disoriented and out of it.  Another thing I really loved was the reaction shots of the dog.  In a moment of acceptance for Adam's condition, his girlfriend brings home a dog to cheer Adam up.  The dog, like Adam, is not in the best condition, as he is a greyhound retired from racing.  His is rather old and very skinny,which draws parallels with Adam's own condition.  But usually, for comedic purposes, a shot of the dog looking mighty adorable will be included, which keeps up with the light tone the movie adopts.

       Another of the interesting choices of the movie is it's use of allusion.  Several television programs make it into the movies, including "The Colbert Report" and a news program about volcanoes, which is interesting because Adam is writing a radio program about volcanoes when the movie begins.  These little clips help reflect Adam's current mood and help us to see what's on his mind.  This allows the movie to involve less extraneous dialogue and be less blatant.  
       One of the scenes that really stood out to me is the scene where Adam finds out he has cancer.
The scene begins with Adam sitting in an office, biting his nails nervously.  The doctor comes and in pretty much ignores him, and then begins speaking into a tape recorder.  There are several close-ups of the doctor's mouth as he speaks into the recorder.  Then, Adam timidly raises his hand to get the doctor's attention, and asks exactly what is going on.  The doctor rambles off medical terms that don't make much sense, and then finally comes out and bluntly says "malignant tumor."  Out of nowhere.  As the doctor begins explaining about Adam's case the audio becomes a high whine, and the doctor's face completely blurs out, and only when the idea of cancer fully sinks in for Adam does the camera un-blur.  This is a very powerful scene, because the use of blur, audio, and complex medical terms spoken rapidly encompasses Adam's complete shock and disbelief at being diagnosed with cancer.  We, as the audience are very confused, until the doctor outright says "malignant tumor," and that creates a kind of jolt as something so big and ominous is just dumped unceremoniously onto us.  It's also interesting how throughout the scene, the doctor never once says "you're dying" or "you have a fairly high chance of dying."  Adam later complains to his therapist that no one will just come out and say that he is going to die.
     

       Compared with some of the cancer stories coming out nowadays, like "The Fault in Our Stars," nothing about cancer is over-glorified.  There's no epic love story.  There's a slight flirty relationship happening, but it is not meant to be epic by any means.  It's not at all obnoxious like "Now is Good," where the love story is the central driving force.  It's more about the support system friends and family create when everyone is coming to terms with illness.  This story is very honest about how it portrays cancer.  

        I will say one of the things I find annoying about this movie is the fact that certain subjects are brought up, like Adam's volcano project, or his nail-biting habits, and then are never followed through. I forgot whole parts of the film by the end, because they show up once or twice and then never reappear. Adam meets two characters while being administered chemotherapy, and they appear quite a lot, but after 3/4 of the movie is over they never show up again. They were important to the story (SPOILER: granted, one of them does die, but the other character literally disappears).  That seems illogical to me, but I guess the movie as a whole isn't any less enjoyable because of it.
       

        Basically, if you like uplifting movies about the bonds people make and uphold, I'd say go for it.  It's a little bit funny, a little bit sad, and overall very heartwarming.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a fantastic job of playing the terminally ill Adam, and I found his performance to be completely believable.  If you have a couple of hours to spare, not a bad way to go about it.

MYST POST #1: The Virgin Suicides

              

                Being a fan of Sofia Coppola, and enjoying two of her other movies, Lost in Translation (2003) and The Bling Ring (2013), I figured I ought to watch one of her earliest works, The Virgin Suicides (1999).  As expected, this movie is rather gloomy, but I found it to be an enjoyable watch.  The story focuses on the five Lisbon sisters, Cecilia  (Hanna Hall), Lux (Kirsten Dunst), Bonnie (Chelse Swain), Mary (A.J. Cook), and Therese (Leslie Hayman).  It’s basically a character study of these five girls from the perspective of the boys in the neighborhood.  The youngest girl, Cecilia, commits suicide, leaving a lasting impact on not only her family but on the community itself.  The parents (played by James Woods and Kathleen Turner), two very opposing forces (the father being lackadaisical and the mother being strict), shelter the remaining girls and eventually shut them up in the house.   We see the gradual emotional destruction of the girls as the movie progresses and ends.

               

 So, all in all, not a happy story. And if it had been done wrong it could’ve been incredibly tough to get through.  Coppola, I believe, manages to combat that.  The best part about the film is that it relies heavily on implications.  Many of the emotions of the girls or the family we have to pick up from their actions or their inflection when they speak.  Once Cecilia dies, there are several shots of the boys “seeing” her in their rooms or around town.  Mr. Lisbon believes to have seen her standing in her bedroom, a few feet from the window she jumped from.  This is heavily implying the state of mind of everyone; they all cannot stop thinking about Cecilia.  This alleviates some of the dark and depressing themes that could’ve made the movie tough. 

                 

               The main style of the film is almost an investigation; the boys explain all the evidence they find on the Lisbon girls, there are many “interviews” with various characters.  There were also included many voice-overs from the gossipers talking on the telephone, whispering rumors and secrets to one another while we see the boarded up outside of the house.  This again emphasizes the enigma of the girls; they are nothing but a rumor.  There is never concrete evidence found about them.

                Also to emphasize the pure dreamlike quality the girls posses, there are many shots of the girls framed in sunlight, dancing in fields.  There are many close-ups on Lux’s face, showing her smile or her hair.  The colors are bright and there are lots of camera flares, making them seem superficial, in a way.  This adds greatly into proving that yes, they are an unattainable, incomprehensible image the boys like to idolize, but never fully get to know.  To be honest, these girls and the way they are perceived remind me of the Lady Brett Ashley in Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises.  Loved for their image and their beauty, but never loved for themselves, and never fully understood.

                One scene that particularly resonated with me was the debutante party after the quadruple suicides of the remaining sisters. The party was themed “asphyxiation,” in bad taste, of course, but it shows the mentality of the boys.  The deaths are on their mind, constantly.  It is all they can think about, even, as they say, now they are all grown.  The party very much emphasizes the theme of death. The voices become tinny.  The lines that we manage to catch are all involving death.  Everything is soaked in a green haze, and many people wear gas masks.  The boys wander around amid a sea of well-dressed men and women, very much looking dead to the world.  The father of the debutante gives a speech about how proud they are of her, and how she has a bright future ahead of her.  A future the Lisbon girls no longer have before them.  One character flings himself into the pool, proclaiming “I’m a teenager, I have problems,” in complete mockery of the sisters.  The haziness and chaos of the scene reflects the inner haze the boys feel.  They spent much time obsessing over the girls, and now they are dead.  While the actual scene of the boys discovering the bodies was very brief and anticlimactic, this party and its visuals help us understand the aftermath of the deaths.  I found this scene to fit the end of the movie very well and it helped me comprehend the full impact of the girls’ deaths.

                I find this film to fit in with Coppola’s style exactly.  Many implications, many shots of character’s faces to understand their emotions.  She seems to like playing with sound, just like the murmured line in the end of Lost In Translation.  There are many quiet lines you have to listen very hard to catch, and there are many voice-overs with small tidbits of information the boys managed to uncover.   Kirsten Dunst, playing the sexually-active sister Lux, far exceeded my expectations.  Knowing her from the Spiderman movies, I was less than impressed to see her on the cast list for this movie.  But I was pleasantly surprised.  She manages to capture Lux’s character very well. 

                Upon discussing this film with my dad, he explained to me that the book, by Jeffrey Eugenides, was much better than its film adaptation.  Feeling curious, I read the book myself.  To be honest, not much was lost between the transition.  All the key elements are there, accurately portrayed on screen.  The actors captured their characters incredibly well, and Sofia Coppola’s approach to an investigative style matches the narration of the book.  To be honest, I’m not sure what my dad was talking about, and I’m a stickler for book to movie adaptations being good.  I will say that somehow the book had a luster to it, an enticement that was lost on the movie.  The book had a spark to it that never really made it on screen.  Yet I still feel the movie is fantastic anyways.

               

                If you like odd, quirky, slightly depressing films, then you’d probably like The Virgin Suicides.  Personally, I really enjoyed the cinematography and the script and the editing.  I would very much recommend this movie.  4.5/5 STARS