Movie Review: Danny Boyle's Frankenstein

Danny Boyle's Frankenstein (2011)

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller

I reviewed this film for Next Projection.

Push aside all thoughts of Boris Karloff, Robert DeNiro or even Peter Boyle. Last year, Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle created a sharp, mostly faithful retelling of the classic novel for London’s National Theatre that was eventually filmed and screened for audiences around the world.

Working with a script from Nick Dear, Boyle returns to his stage roots with his take on Mary Shelley’s 1818 Gothic masterpiece, Frankenstein. In a pre-show behind-the-scenes look at the dress rehearsals, Boyle reveals that he took on this ambitious production in an attempt to tell the story almost solely from the Creature’s point of view – a risky venture considering the first half of the play has very little dialogue as the Creature grunts and moans his way to some semblance of humanity.

As a result, we see smaller, poignant moments that build on the Creature’s characterization, such as his obvious delight at the sight of the sunrise or how the thought of the moon makes him feel solitary. While cutting out the first portion of Shelley’s novel may be jarring to some of her fans, Boyle and Dear manage to narrow the focus and create a tighter narrative structure that rearranges certain pivotal events while still remaining loyal to the original text.

Right from the stunning opening scene, where a naked Creature emerges from the womb-like contraption in which he was created, Boyle’s Frankenstein holds our attention for more than 10 minutes as we lay witness to the Creature’s first fumbling steps. Without the additional narrative exposition of how he came to be, we are thrust right into the Creature’s story the very same way he is suddenly thrust into life.

The sparse sets leaves more room for the actors to breath and the very presence of Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller’s performances fill the stage (and screen).

Miller perfectly fills the shoes of the arrogant Victor Frankenstein, his assured answers eventually giving way to his haunted inner torment and indecision over whether or not he could muster the courage to destroy his own creation. Just when you may start to feel a twinge of sympathy, he brushes away any thought of the sort with his cold conceit. He’s a tragically flawed figure who hastily decided to play God, only to be humbled by the fact that his own creation had to teach him about what it means to love.

Cumberbatch as the Creature and Miller as Frankenstein

In the more difficult role of the two, Benedict Cumberbatch is simply astonishing – completely inhabiting the character of the Creature. It’s a fearless performance. As Cumberbatch revealed in the pre-show behind-the-scenes interview, he studied the movements of accident victims who were learning to walk again. As a result, you feel the Creature’s frustration as he learns to walk for the first time, along with his desperation to communicate with words and his all-encompassing desire to experience love. Both Cumberbatch’s performance and Dear’s script make the Creature more than just a pile of contorting limbs – he’s a full-blown intellectual, a man who can recite Milton’s Paradise Lost by heart and muses over what it really means to love. It is mankind that shows him evil and teaches him about hate and the death of one’s soul, making the scenes where the Creature euphorically tastes his first meal and feels his first rainfall all the more bittersweet.

Cumberbatch and Miller play well off one another and their shared scenes are some of the play’s highlights. Both men recently won Best Actor at the Olivier Awards, handed out by the Society of London Theatre.

The rest of the supporting cast doesn’t fare as well in underwritten roles, with the exception of Karl Johnson (TVs Rome) in the role of the blind cottager that kindly takes the Creature in and provides him with an education.

In the final scene, as the Creature forces Frankenstein into a game of cat and mouse across the North Pole, both of their utter desolation is keenly felt – Frankenstein’s for his inability to overcome his pride and destroy his creation and the Creature’s for his failure to find someone to love him.

The two are destined to share their final days together as Boyle’s play hauntingly comes to a close with the image of their worn frames wandering away through the cold mists.

It's an extraordinary piece of theatre, led by two spectacular lead performances, that makes Danny Boyle’s Frankenstein an absolute must-see.

Note: Cumberbatch and Miller alternated roles throughout the London run. Both options are available to view on this international cinema tour.

FINAL GRADE: A+

Movie Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Gary Oldman as George Smiley

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Directed by: Tomas Alfredson
Starring: Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch and John Hurt

Often, when we think of the word "spy" we associate it with the likes of James Bond. Or even Jason Bourne. Physically strong men with a knack for operating high-tech devices and bedding beautiful women. There's little sitting around because there's just too much that has to be done at various exotic locales from around the world.

But then there's George Smiley (Gary Oldman), a former intelligence agent, who is lured out of retirement by Control (John Hurt) to investigate the possibility of a Soviet double agent working within the Circus (the nickname given to the British Secret Intelligence Service, aka MI6). Based on the 1974 John Le Carre novel and adapted for the screen by scribes Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy weaves through a labyrinthine plot that involves Soviet agents, double crossings and murder most foul. Smiley is essentially the anti-Bond. Where Bond has time to sip martinis and woo women while on the job, Smiley is meticulous and precise. He doesn't have time for fun and games. It's old-fashioned intrigue where most of the mystery is solved while sitting behind a desk and speaking in hushed tones.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Gary Oldman

The challenge of the film is that it asks its audience to watch for minute details and patiently wait for the slow reveals. With its deliberate pace, Tinker Tailor lets its narrative unravel naturally, without gun battles in the streets to keep our attention. It holds its secrets close to the chest, preferring to keep the audience in the dark for as long as it takes Smiley to reach his conclusions. The film is more grounded in realism than the majority of spy thrillers --- Tinker Tailor is your grandfather's type of espionage.

Swedish director Tomas Alfredson (who rose to fame in 2008 with his lyrical vampire drama Let the Right One In) pays close attention to period detail, from the tweed jackets to the tacky '70s office decor. Like last years Tree of Life, Alfredson's challenging film can be somewhat alienating to mainstream audiences. It purposely sets itself up as a game of chess and the plot moves about as fast as an actual game.

However, two aspects help elevate Tinker Tailor from just being brushed off: the performances and the clever script. The cast is impeccable; arguably one of the best ensembles of 2011. Led by a beautifully restrained performance from Oldman, who give a master class in subtle acting, there's also a whose-who of British talent on display. The three standouts include Colin Firth as potential suspect Bill Haydon, Benedict Cumberbatch as the young and eager spy Peter Guillam and Tom Hardy as reluctant informant Ricki Tarr. Each bring their own sizeable talent to the film, drawing the viewer into their tangled web.

While there are pacing issues with the narrative, the screenplay is an intelligent and challenging piece of work that follows through on its promise to reward the viewer who sticks with the story until the very end. Although you may be thrown off by the somewhat dry narrative, there are enough clues thrown your way to keep you intrigued by this intricate mystery.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Movie Review: Bronson

Tom Hardy as Michael "Bronson" Peterson

Bronson (2008)
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
Starring: Tom Hardy

"You don't want to be trapped inside with me, sunshine ...I am Charlie Bronson. I am Britain's most violent prisoner."

Dutch director Nicolas Winding Refn had a breakout year in 2011 with the cult success of Drive, his high-octane and stylish ode to violence. However, where Ryan Gosling's "Driver" was a silent brooder, the central figure in Refn's 2008 film, Bronson, vividly narrates his own exploits in increasingly bizarre fantasy sequences -- the star of his own show, where he's an artist and a hero to the downtrodden who responds to a roaring crowd only he can hear.

Loosely based on a true story, the film opens in 1974 just as a young hooligan by the name of Michael Peterson (Tom Hardy) is sentenced to seven years in prison for robbing a post office -- a jail term that ultimately turned into a 34-year stint after he committed countless other crimes (including murder) while incarcerated. Peterson achieved tabloid notoriety throughout the United Kingdom -- often referred to as "Her Majesty's longest-serving criminal." While behind bars, Peterson conceived his alter ego, Charlie Bronson -- snagging the name from the prickly American movie star. As "Bronson", Peterson retreated further and further into his wild fantasies as he was chartered back and forth between prison and a mental health asylum. There is no cure for his violent nature -- it's embedded in his DNA.

Bronson is a bizarre film whose success rests solely on the appeal of its star -- in this case, the rapidly rising up-and-comer, Hardy. In a film that is essentially devoid of any secondary characters (it's all Bronson, all the time), Hardy excels. With his intense glare and darkly comic one-liners, he's both frightening and hilarious. He portrays Bronson as a man so consumed by his anger that he gives no real reason or motive for his actions -- he simply is the way that he is and he makes no apology for it. It's impossible to pinpoint where his anger comes from considering he comes from a stable home with supportive parents. As he declares in one scene, "there was nuffin' wonky about my upbringing." His feral, animalistic nature propels him into numerous misguided fights against authority -- or is it all just anarchy for anarchy's sake? Even after being beaten into submission by prison guards and heavily sedated by asylum nurses, Bronson's inner beast refuses to be subdued. Like Alex DeLarge, the antihero of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, Bronson is a lost soul rebelling against all that he confronts. You'd be hard-pressed to envision a better actor in the role -- having Hardy in the film was a casting coup and he's absolutely mesmerizing.

Hardy as "Bronson"

It would be easy to dismiss Bronson as emotionally empty; a film that chooses to glorify violence without delving deeper into the subject matter at hand. I'll admit that this sense of detachment and underwritten characters are two of the things I struggled with while watching both Bronson and Drive. However, amid all the violent sequences lies an interesting commentary that is, unfortunately, not fully explored: Is violence art? In some strange way, is Bronson expressing himself -- his inner torments -- through bouts of rage and destruction? He approaches the prospect of a fight with a welcoming smile, fists at the ready. He meticulously prepares for battle if he senses it coming -- preferring to fight completely in the nude, his body greased. He even holds off a slew of prison guards in order to finish painting (literally) one of his victims. When a fight is over, it's as though he's completed yet another masterpiece.

Refn's films carry a distinct style that borrows from other directors, yet still manages to feel completely original, almost operatic -- think Quentin Tarantino. Bronson is part black comedy, part psychedelic biography with shades of A Clockwork Orange, Requiem for a Dream and the sheer insanity of Natural Born Killers. His 80s-laden soundtrack only adds to the ludicrousness of the events unfolding on the screen.

However, if one were to take away the jaw-dropping and magnetic performance of Hardy, Bronson amounts to very little. Told through the eyes of Bronson, we understand that he's an unreliable narrator -- a violent being with a maniacal cackle. Yet, we are left wondering why we should care? Lets just be grateful that Refn let Hardy have free rein with the picture.

FINAL GRADE: B

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 4

30 DAY MOVIE MEME
Day 4: FAVOURITE FILM CLICHE

THE JANE AUSTEN EFFECT: A boy and a girl, perfect for one another (naturally), initially dislike one another because they have incorrect information about each other that affects their overall opinions. The audience knows that it's only a matter of time before the two will realize they are perfect for one another and fall in love once the air has been cleared and miscommunications are revealed in a flurry of relieved laughter.

THE PLOT IDEA:
I tend to avoid romantic comedies at all costs. When I say "romantic comedy", I'm not referring to  films of the genre that attempt to be unique and actually have something to say about relationships. For example, two superior romantic comedy films are Lost in Translation and, more recently, (500) Days of Summer.

The ones I'm referring to (the ones I will always avoid like a plague) feature the likes of Kate Hudson, Julia Roberts, Katherine Heigl, et al.

I don't usually like to have a prejudice against a certain genre of film, however, I usually feel I'm justified in wanting to see something other than frivolous fluff which solely focuses on women who just want to get married and compete with one another and men who are far too good to be true. Those films tend to feature the aforementioned actresses (and I use that term very loosely).

How is a Jane Austen ending (complete with a wedding or an engagement) any different from a film like Bride Wars, where Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway will stop at nothing to have a bigger and better wedding than the other, sanity and feminism be damned? As it turns out, there are significant differences.

Austen wrote biting social commentary with a touch of realism, and she dressed it up as romance. She covers the everyday banalities the women of her time experienced. Her novels are pivotal to anyone studying that particular era of British history, where women stayed home waiting to be courted and men came in and out of their lives in between stops to British colonies around the globe.

Austen's heroines are always aware of how ridiculous everything is around them and they tend to shy away from falling into the same traps other women do, regarding men and their station in society. This being late-eighteenth century literature, their reward (for lack of a better word) is a man who actually embraces the quirky, stubborn and spirited person that they are, no questions asked.

These are not light and airy women, these Austen heroines. They revolt against conformity and, despite the conventional endings involving big and extravagant weddings, the reader (or viewer) never forgets that the heroine, whether it be an Elizabeth Bennet or an Emma Woodhouse, retained her identity during a time where it was easier for a woman to hide behind a curtain or her husband's shadow.

WHY I LOVE IT:
Because, deep down, I do love a good romance. I love high drama and misunderstood feelings; a soap opera atmosphere dressed up in sexy historical costumes and English accents. I love that Austen's women are unique, even from one another. They are always complex, educated and headstrong women and, unlike some of the degrading romantic comedies that are thrown at women these days, they don't have to sacrifice their identity.

I love a good love story as much as the next woman, I just prefer to see my women paired up with a man who is their male counterpart and doesn't treat them as a commodity or sex object. Call me crazy, but I love my mushy Austen endings for all their drama and tears. It's satisfying knowing those heroines wound up with great guys without losing themselves in the process.

TOP: Sense and Sensibility (1995, Alan Rickman & Kate Winslet)

MIDDLE: Emma (1996, Gwyneth Paltrow & Jeremy Northam)

BOTTOM: Pride & Prejudice (1995, Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle)