Film Review: Circle

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. On th-ink.co.uk Harry will be writing a series of posts in which he will be sharing  his opinions on things he has watched. 

Circle, 2015, dir Aaron Hann and Mario Miscine, 3/5

The plot is simple. A staggering amount of fifty mixed American strangers wake up in a big dark room with an ominous red-lit floor. They are arranged facing each other in a circle. If they leave their spot, they are zapped dead by a mysterious dome in the middle. They then realise there are timed zaps every two minutes (heralded by a drumming sound) killing them off one at a time and that between zaps, they can mentally vote for who gets it next. They are faced with two options: work together to try and stop this fiendish game or decide who deserves to be last person standing.

ccccccc

Circle

The explanation offered for their hellish situation is aliens. They have all been abducted and subjected to this highly imaginative, psychologically-torturing experiment. Thankfully the film doesn’t delve too much into this idea. It’s simply used as a quick and swift excuse for the plot. Let’s imagine the screenwriters (who also directed the film) in action:

‘So we’ve got a random bunch of people trapped in this cool but scary game we’ve invented. How do we explain it?’
‘Aliens.’
‘Done. Let’s get on with the plot.’

For as elaborate a set-up it is to have aliens putting humans through some mindless death game for science or kicks, it’s nowhere near as interesting as the characters and their dialogue.

Circle reminded me of two films combined: Saw and 12 Angry Men. I say Saw because this is another film where the script writers shove their characters into a horribly distressing scenario involving some murderous puzzling game, just to see what they’d do and to bounce them off each other to make a story.

cccccccccc

Circle

As for 12 Angry Men, for those who don’t know it this 1957 movie is about a jury of men from different factions of American society quarrelling over the guilt of a boy accused of stabbing his father. It’s an intense, claustrophobic, emotionally charged drama much like Circle. The characters of Circle are also faced with a similar moral dilemma, except they are forced to weigh up the moral worth of themselves and each other before they get bumped off.

The characters also represent a spectrum of American society. We have students, the elderly, a child, a pregnant woman, a cop, a soldier, a minister, a cancer survivor, a banker: all manner of ethnicities, beliefs and careers. This variety adds chemistry to the plot, for various prejudices raise their heads, exposing the ugliness festering beneath the polite face of Western civilisation.

For example, when it turns out one member of the group can’t speak English, some people clamour for his death simply because he can’t contribute and the one student who can translate for him would merely be slowing them down. Even worse, one or two individuals accuse and victimise him for being an illegal alien. Race, sexuality, age and even jobs are used as excuses and arguments to slaughter people.

Ironically, those that expose their prejudices are swiftly targeted, which brings me onto the manipulative way the film handles its audience’s emotions. I felt a savage satisfaction whenever a dislikeable character got zapped, and then guilt. This is a film about the enormity of taking life, but do the characters and the audience become numbed to the sheer amount of death? Though the characters are stuck in an extreme situation, is it right for them to vengefully target bigots and stoop to their level?

circle

Circle

Although there are a few cultural stereotypes (the rich businessmen tend to be the monsters) plenty of stereotypes are challenged and many characters who I thought I liked and understood could change their nature and intentions at the drop of a hat. There are a few noble characters who sacrifice themselves (much to the joy of the more selfish people) but this is certainly one of those films you shouldn’t watch if you want faith in humanity.

When attempts to work together and beat the game keep failing, the characters resort to the easier option of playing along and squabbling over who should be sacrificed in order to buy more time, thus starting a vicious circle. It becomes every person for themselves and there’s even a divide when people realise the child and the pregnant woman will likely be spared to the end. Some people strive to make this happen, while others try to persuade people to get them zapped in order to save their own skins.

So yes the film is bleak, but it’s undeniably thrilling and fascinating. The plot and dialogue is intense and charged, with lots of tension and twists to keep it unpredictable. None of the actors are big names but they make each one of their fifty characters stand out with incredible performances, which really make the film. Their characters’ behaviour feels realistic but they still take you on an emotional rollercoaster. I felt fear, anger and my eyes did get wet at some points, particularly when the terrified child and pregnant woman were on screen. The film works as an absorbing psychosocial exploration of what values different people hold onto when faced with life or death, as well as being a gripping thriller which is tricky to pull off. What the characters say and do still haunt me. I don’t think this got much of a cinematic release but it deserves to be more of a hit. It’s on Netflix so go watch it now. It’ll be interesting to see what the clearly talented writing/directing pair behind this will come up with next.

Film Review: Beasts of No Nation

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. On th-ink.co.uk Harry will be writing a series of posts in which he will be sharing  his opinions on things he has watched. 

Beasts of No Nation, 2015, cert 15, dir Cary Joji Fukunaga, 4/5

nonation1

You could say this is an important film not just for its content but also because it’s the first feature-length movie produced by Netflix. I have mixed feelings for Netflix. It’s fun to use but I find its content rather geared to American mainstream movies. You still have to seek out international and cult/arty films on DVD. Not that I mind, because I prefer owning physical copies of films and music rather than having exhausting amounts of movies and songs online that don’t belong to me even if I pay a subscription fee.

I also disagree with the way Netflix have released their first movie. They pushed for cinematic release but a few cinema chains refused to show the film as Netflix released it on their channel at the same time. As representatives of these cinemas argued, why would people pay for cinema tickets when they could watch the movie at home?  Their fears appear justified, for although the movie has over three million views online it only made $50,000 back from the $12 million Netflix doled out to distribute it in cinemas.

These cinemas have furthered accused Netflix of pushing for cinematic release just so they can qualify for an Academy award. If this is so, it feels slightly cynical to use a film about child soldiers just to get an award.

nonation

Not that it doesn’t deserve one. Cinematic politics aside, this is an almighty film. Based on a 2005 novel by Nigerian-American Uzodinma Iweala, the story is set in an unnamed African country (possibly Nigeria) and revolves around a boy named Agu played by first-time Ghanaian actor Abraham Attah. He lives the typical life of a fun-loving cheeky kid, safe within the buffer zone of a war-torn country with his friends and family. That is, until government troops storm Agu’s village, declare the men rebel spies and execute them, including Agu’s father and brother.

Agu escapes into the bush where he is captured by the real rebel army, mostly comprised of boys his age. He is trained by the formidable Commandant (played by British star Idris Elba) to be a guerrilla fighter and is thrust into a nightmarish world of bullets, blood and black magic.

For a young actor in his first role, Abraham Attah is magnificent. He doesn’t use a great deal of dialogue or expression and even his poetic interior monologue is used sparsely (as monologues should be). Nevertheless, he convincingly portrays the fear and trauma his character suffers, and the emotional damage and ageing war inflicts on him. Everything he says and does feels real, raw and pure: an incredibly mature performance from someone so young.

nontaion2

All the acting in the film is good, so much so it’s more like watching a documentary than a work of fiction. But the show is almost stolen by Idris Elba, whose portrayal of a guerrilla warlord is electrifying. His very presence and energy commands the screen along with his troops, especially during the scenes when he’s giving dramatic speeches to whip his boys up for battle. It’s great to see an actor we’re used to seeing play heroic characters like DCI John Luther effectively portray a devious and conflicted character like the Commandant. He proclaims to be a new father figure for the lost boys he recruits and that he’s given them fresh purpose in life, yet he’s willing to let them kill or be killed for his own ideals while never actually committing any violence himself. Rather, he’s more effective at inciting others to violence, which is what makes him so menacing. Yet he appears to genuinely care for Agu and this little bit of humanity is enough to make the audience feel some sympathy and respect for such a disturbing character, a great achievement on the film’s part.

The style of the film itself is an unflinching tour de force. The audience is thrust headlong into gritty realism, savage tension and heartbreaking tragedy. Rather than being steeped in politics, the film is more intent on portraying the psychological and emotional impact of war on its human characters. If there are any issues with the film, it’s that sometimes its portrayal of such psychological trauma is rather simplistic and idealistic, i.e. a child soldier can only recover from his experiences if he lets himself become a child again. You could also argue this is clearly another ‘issues’ drama, where the film is spending all its effort to show you how bad something is, along with the overriding strength of the human spirit etc etc. However, the film’s message is very clear and very relevant. Even if I judge Netflix, I praise them on getting behind such a masterpiece.

nnnn

Top 5 Creepiest Women in Film

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward

There’s nothing scarier than a woman, and horror films have given us an endless gallery of terrifying female characters and performances to choose from. So with Del Toro’s women-led Crimson Peak hitting cinemas, let’s have a look back at a few of the freakiest fems and chilling chicks to give us nightmares…

5. The Evil Dead Girls – Cheryl, Linda and Sherry
Played by: Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker and Theresa Tilly
In: The Evil Dead (1981)

evil
‘We’re gonna get you…’ I couldn’t cherry pick one of these girls because they’re all equally terrifying. Sure they start off as the typical sweet American college females you’d expect to find holidaying in some dank wood cabin in the middle of nowhere. But once they get possessed by those pesky forces of darkness… well where do I start? Linda spins her head 360 degrees while girlishly singing threats and she won’t stop laughing. Then Cheryl, good God, poor tree-raped Cheryl freaked me out just guessing her friend’s playing cards in some rising screeching voice. That’s before she levitates, growls doom-laden prophecies at her friends and stabs them with pencils. The film was brutal enough to make me worry about my friends being turned into grinning, screaming, vomit-spattered psycho bitches from hell.

4. The Exorcist girl – Regan MacNeil
Played by: Linda Blair
In: The Exorcist (1973)

exxx
‘It burns!’ Speaking of possession and vomit-spattered psycho bitches from hell, none will ever beat this doll. I know the infamous scenes have been talked about and parodied to death but I have seen various exorcism films and this is still the most extreme and affecting, mainly because most exorcism films that have come after are feeble imitations. For one thing Regan is genuinely sweet and appealing at the start, which is a first compared to most teenage characters in horror. So it’s quite horrific to see her gradually turn into a blaspheming, foul-mouthed, puking, ball-grabbing, crucifix-banging cockney beast. The best and freakiest thing about this character is that she (or it) is so extreme that no matter how much you’ve heard about the film, you’re never sure what she’s going to do next.

3. Mrs Carmody
Played by: Marcia Gay Harden
In: The Mist (2007)

ccccc
You expect victims of demonic possession to turn evil, but all too often in horror films God-fearing women should be feared too. Take for instance Mrs Carmody, played splendidly by Marcia Gay Harden in 2007 movie The Mist. A fog descends on a New England town, bringing with it a swarm of ugly carnivorous critters and the townspeople are trapped in the store. Mrs Carmody immediately makes her extremist Christian beliefs clear and starts babbling about the apocalypse. At first she just annoys everyone and gets a slap or two. But as the situation worsens, her power grows over the trapped community until most of them are baying for human sacrifice to appease the beasts. So Mrs Carmody wins this spot not just for sticking to her bloodthirsty Biblical beliefs to the end, but for spreading them so easily over the fragile minds of her flock that they obey her every will and turn to violence without a thought.

2. Carrie’s mum – Margaret White
Played by: Piper Laurie
In: Carrie (1976)

arrrr
‘I can see your dirty pillows…’ Another crazy Christian lady who happens to be the mom from hell. I guess Stephen King had a real problem with Christian women since he invented both Maggie White and Mrs Carmody. If it’s possible, Carrie’s mum is even crazier and scarier than Mrs Carmody and certainly not mothering material. For one thing, she likes locking her daughter up in cupboards (Harry Potter anyone?) and can’t handle any talk of periods, breasts (sorry ‘dirty pillows’) or sex let alone her daughter’s telekinetic powers. Carrie could really have done with a social worker. Now don’t get me wrong, Carrie is also a scary character but only at the end when she turns into some blood-drenched, prom-trashing bully killer. Her mother is scary the whole time. Piper Laurie gives such a fantastically unhinged performance that, like poor possessed Regan, you’re never sure what’s going to happen when she’s on screen. I haven’t seen the remake but as great an actress Julianne Moore is, I can’t imagine her matching Laurie’s performance, especially in the scene where she smiles so divinely when pursuing her daughter with a knife.

1. Annie Wilkes
Played by: Kathy Bates
In: Misery (1990)

miiii
‘I’m your number one fan. There’s nothing to worry about…’ Actually it’s a writer’s worst nightmare. Successful novelist Paul Sheldon (played cunningly by James Caan) suffers a car crash and wakes up crippled in the home of a smiling woman claiming to be his number one fan. Unfortunately she turns out to be too much of a fan. Kathy Bate’s extraordinary role wins number one for a couple of reasons. Firstly, compared to the other women she appears harmless: a dumpy farm woman with some nursing expertise and a bit of an obsession for her beloved author and his books. But some of her more eccentric qualities (her sudden mood swings and specialised vocabulary of ‘cockadoody’ and ‘oogy’) hint at the madness within. She’s not only crazy but also controlling, calculating and not afraid to use violence to get what she wants, particularly concerning hammers and feet. This brings me onto the second reason why she’s number one creepy woman. She has a very black and white view of the world. Everything she does and believes is right and everybody else is wrong… or dead. In short, not someone you want to be disabled and helpless around. But the other thing about her that beats the other characters is that you can’t help feeling sorry for her or laughing at her overreacting: when she’s safely behind the TV screen that is.

Film Review: A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward

A Girl walks home alone at night, 2015, 18, dir Ana Lily Amirpour, 3/5

walks

I’m not a big fan of vampires movies, unless they’re done well. I dislike the way certain films and TV shows (cough cough Twilight cough) have portrayed vampires as surly, sparkling love interests. I’m more a fan of the old fashioned kill-them-first-shag-them-later variety. I also dislike the fact that vampires have been done to death. But I guess vampire films are like any other genre. Out of the majority of over-clichéd, over-sexed muck rises a few gems that dare to do things differently and show everybody else how it’s supposed to be done.

There was Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In  in 2008. I liked its original premise of a young girl vampire making friends with a human boy. However I don’t know if it was the film’s sparse, sombre tone or there was something wrong with me when I tried to watch it but I just found it a bit dull. This was certainly not the case with the subject of this review.

sss

This year’s vampire flick (now on DVD and blu-ray) is the most striking and unusual of its kind I’ve ever seen. For one thing, it’s set in Iran with dialogue faithfully in Farsi while remaining an American production. Elijah Wood is one of the executive producers and he features in the special feature interviews.

Watch these interviews and you will understand exactly how an Iranian vampire film came together. The director Ana Lily Amirpour has an Iranian background and comes across as a female version of Quentin Tarantino. She swears a lot and chatters enthusiastically about her favourite things, which include spaghetti westerns, pop music and vampires. She set out to write a screenplay that brought all these elements together. She had already shot a couple of shorts set in Iran and when she tried on a chador veil one of the extras was wearing, she knew her vampire had to be Iranian. Of course.

But she’s not just planted a vampire in Iran. She’s planted a vampire in a fictional desert town named Bad City , home to various social misfits including a prostitute, a pimp, a transvestite, an urchin, some spoilt kids, a junky and his son Arash (Arash Marandi) who dresses like James Dean and drives a hot vintage car. Even when his beloved ride gets taken as payment for his father’s drugs and he breaks his hand punching a wall in anger, he still looks cool with a cast and a bicycle.

walkkksss

While he’s trying to look after his father and cat, make money and keep on looking cool, the vampire simply named the Girl is prowling the streets at night, looking suitably menacing yet somehow cute in a black flowing chador as she preys on scummy men, terrorises children and steals their skateboards.

The actress Sheila Vand gives an astonishing performance. She never smiles and her lines are rare too, but she communicates so much menace and loneliness through her expressions you don’t know whether to be scared or feel sorry for her.

The sparse dialogue in this film is a merit. It’s clear that Amirpour has learnt a lot from her favourite Sergio Leone. Her movie runs on the less-is-more principle, relying on the actor’s expressions and actions to tell the story rather than dialogue. She also makes heavy use of atmosphere and suspense rather than gore in the horror scenes, which is refreshing regarding most blood-spattered horrors today. In fact for a vampire movie there is very little blood, except for one nasty scene and even then the film is in black and white.

It’s clear from the start that this is not a straightforward horror. Amirpour is more concerned with giving her audience a visual feast. She is also a big fan of David Lynch. With the film being black and white and featuring various long shots of industrial scenery, as well as being an urban nightmare populated by sad freaks, I couldn’t help being reminded of such Lynch films as Eraserhead and Blue Velvet.

walkkkkk

However, while the film is a banquet for the eyes and ears (the soundtrack consists of Iranian and Western pop mixed with spaghetti western-style music), perhaps the film is too concentrated on style and trying to be hip. For example, amidst all the culture references the plot boils down to a love story between Arash and the vampire. It’s the film’s presentation of romance which gets on my nerves. These two very good looking people meet, are instantly attracted to each other and their lovelorn talk consists mostly of comparing life to music: ‘don’t you wish you could live in a song?’ etc. I’m sorry but this fantasy does not match my past awkward, bumbling attempts at dating and thus I believe it encourages unrealistic romantic expectations. Then again the film is just that, a fantasy.

Nevertheless as cool and fun and imaginative the film is, I couldn’t help feeling a little underwhelmed at the end. The film bends over backwards to satisfy you superficially with stunning visuals. When it comes to the plot however, I feel the film could have gone for more emotional impact with the dramatic events it depicted. It’s cool that the film opted for a less-is-more approach concerning the dialogue and emotion depicted, but there’s never any real conflict between the characters. So as dark as the film gets, it doesn’t really pack a punch. Still, it’s worth seeing for the cat Masuka’s performance alone.

This is still the coolest and most genre-busting vampire movie you will ever see and I applaud Amirpour’s unique vision and cinematic enthusiasm. I’m looking forward to her next movie The Bad Batch, a love story set in a cannibal colony in a Texas wasteland. I hope she does a western.

Images from IMDB

Film Review: Fear and Desire

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward
Fear and Desire, 1953, dir Stanley Kubrick, cert 12, 3/5

Stanley Kubrick is one of my favourite directors, so I was rather excited when back in 2013 Eureka released his debut as part of their Masters of Cinema series on DVD. They even added, as special extras, three short documentaries Kubrick did, two of which are his earliest examples of film making. So you’ve got a nice little package of Kubrick gold if you’re a fan; the beginnings of a career that would span nearly fifty years. To be honest, we’re lucky to be able to watch Fear and Desire on DVD at all. Kubrick detested it so much he removed it from circulation in the 60s when he became more recognised, with only one print surviving in New York.

Fear

Fear and Desire

You can kind of see why. Kubrick referred to his first film as a ‘bumbling, amateur film exercise’ and to be honest that’s the impression I got before I even read that quote. The plot is a bit loose for a start. The film is set during an unknown war in an unknown country and focuses on four soldiers who are stranded behind enemy lines when their plane crashes. Their plan is to get to the river so they can raft it past the enemy and back to base. It sounds quite a straightforward plot, but Kubrick uses all his art cinema influences to give us a strange and striking one hour viewing experience.

As expected from Kubrick, the film is beautifully shot. It was filmed in a national park in California and Kubrick fully exploits the picturesque woodland and river scenery, even if it conflicts with his grim plot. Even though the film is black and white, it also boasts some impressive lighting, most of it natural. There is one scene in particular where the soldiers attack two sentries at their post at night. We get shots of half-lit angry men’s faces as they beat their foes to a pulp rapidly cut with close-ups of the enemies’ hands squeezing fragments of the bread and stew they were eating for supper. The result is an intense but bizarre and unrealistic fight scene which sums up the creative but naive ambition Kubrick applied for his first movie.

fearrr

Fear and Desire

So while we can agree that Fear and Desire is not as stylistically or literally coherent as Kubrick’s later masterpieces, it still packs a lot into such a short running time. On one hand it’s got a typical war action storyline of GIs busting through enemy lines and attacking an enemy base which they discover nearby. On the other, there are elements that foreshadow the styles of modern anti-war classics like Apocalypse Now and even Kubrick’s later films like Full Metal Jacket by several decades. For one thing, Kubrick used stylish film techniques like poetic interior monologues to death, which the 1998 equally dreamy war epic The Thin Red Line also did with its parade of military characters.

There is also an episode in Fear and Desire where the four soldiers capture a native girl, which is also the plot for the 1989 Vietnam war film Casualties of War, in which five American soldiers kidnap and rape a Vietnamese girl. While the men of Fear and Desire don’t go that far, they express their desire for their captive. One who actually goes mad through some extreme form of PTSD (in a typically Kubrickian over-the-top performance foreshadowing Jack Nicholson in The Shining) kisses and presses his body on her when she’s tied to a tree. This scene was used to sell the movie as a sexploitation, which were all the rage in underground 1950s cinema. Randy audiences must have been quite disappointed when subjected to Kubrick’s dream-like war allegory.

The attitude towards war exhibited in Fear and Desire (which is carried on in other Kubrick films) is strikingly modern and pessimistic regarding 1950s American cinema. All the four soldiers want to do is survive and when they do take some military action in attacking the enemy base, the results are bittersweet. All four men are damaged in some way by their experiences. Though the film is short and a little disorganised, it has a surprisingly deep and haunting message about war’s senseless brutality.

But does the film stand up on its own apart from being Stanley Kubrick’s first film? Almost. It’s certainly not as good or cohesive as Kubrick’s later works and there are much stronger and more noteworthy films that came out at the time. The other short films on the DVD are a little interesting and a little dull. It’s best to view all the films on the disc as a worthy director stretching his wings, and Fear and Desire as an experimental indulgence in metaphors and literary references. However there was enough plot, good acting and filmmaking to keep me gripped. It’s a strange but beautiful gem, a little rough on the edges but with enough of an intoxicating gleam to draw me back into this absurd dream on war. It’s also noteworthy for being the first wholly independent US movie, for it was financed by donations from Kubrick’s family and friends. I’m just glad that they had faith in him and this restoration finally got release in the UK. Plus it’s short so if you hate it you don’t have to hate it for long.

[Quotes and background information from ‘No other country but the mind’ by James Naremore, an essay included with the DVD.]