W
US 2008
Starrin: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell
Director: Oliver Stone
The Fall
US/India/UK 2006
Starring: Lee Pace, Catinca Untaru
Director: Tarsem
Eagle Eye
US 2008
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Michelle Monaghan, Billy Bob Thornton
Director: DJ Caruso
Brideshead Revisited
UK 2008
Starring: Matthew Goode, Ben Wishaw
Director: Julian Jarrold
ON PAPER, Oliver Stone seems a sensible choice to direct W – the first ever fictional biopic of an American President to make it to cinemas while said President is still in office. And on paper, the remarkable life and career of George W-for-Walker Bush would appear a ripe subject for such a treatment – perhaps a cheeky satire in the vein of Robert Altman’s more political romps. Perhaps the result might have been able to combine the corridors-of-power speculation of The Queen with the Washington DC-inspired shenanigans of Burn After Reading?
As it is, W – while not exactly a bad film as such – must count as a significant missed opportunity and a disappointment. The structure of Stanley Weiser’s screenplay is perhaps the most fundamental problem, hopping around between the present (in other words, the 43rd President’s time in office) and the past as it chronicles his battles with his never-quite-satisfied dad, President George Bush the first (James Cromwell), with the bottle and with his own all-too-evident limitations. There’s no sense of accumulation here: this happened, that happened and somehow Dubya ended up in the White House. We end up with a more malign rehash of Being There.
Likewise, we never really get much of a sense of what makes Bush tick – of his inner life. Maybe there’s simply no “there” there. But there are ways to convey this in cinematic form without ending up with the genial blank which is quite effectively incarnated by Josh Brolin (continuing his belated rise to the top tables – watch out for him in Gus Van Sant’s upcoming Milk). Karl Rove (Toby Jones) and Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) are likewise let off the hook somewhat and shown as shadowy Machiavellis who never quite come into full focus. It could be that Stone – whose last picture, World Trade Center, likewise failed to do justice to its subject matter – is simply over the hill these days. Perhaps he ended up feeling some sympathy for the devil and so defanged what could and should have been a delicious skewering of a notably vast target. Perhaps such a life demands a more extravagantly extreme treatment – more of a Ralph Steadman phantasmagoria than this middle-of-the-road, mainstream-oriented portrait.
Unfortunately for fans of Mark E Smith or Albert Camus, The Fall has absolutely nothing to do with either the band or the novel of identical appellation. But if its title lacks originality, then the movie’s superabundant contents provide extravagant compensation. Loosely based on Yo ho ho, a little-seen Bulgarian adventure from 1981, it’s an epic, florid fantasia, half a decade in the making, from the hyperactive imagination of the advert/pop-video director known professionally as Tarsem. He was born Tarsem Singh Dhandwar in the Punjab in 1961, and his latest work – a prodigious leap ahead of his disastrous Hollywood-funded debut, Jennifer Lopez vehicle The Cell (2002) – borrows much from the visual and oral traditions of his native land.
It’s constructed as an airily whimsical multi-level narrative about an injured silent-movie stuntman (Pace) and the precocious young girl (Untaru) he befriends while recuperating in a California hospital, spinning her swashbuckling yarns which Tarsem illustrates with footage shot in two dozen countries. Having divided audiences and critics alike since premiering at Toronto back in September 2006, The Fall is only now emerging from a distribution limbo. Unorthodox and challenging, a fairy-tale for adults in the tradition of Pan’s Labyrinth and reportedly made without recourse to CGI effects of any kind, it’s clearly something of a tough sell in today’s blockbuster-oriented commercial climate.
But it’s easy to see why those who like The Fall tend to become noisily passionate in their admiration. While undeniably bonkers and somewhat over-convoluted in its double-helix plotting, it’s consistently ravishing to look at – with eye-popping colours, costumes and locations – and, crucially, boasts a pair of terrific, engaging central performances. Lee Pace confirms that he’s a proper old-fashioned movie star in waiting, although even he can’t do much to stop little Catinca Untaru from stealing her every scene. She’s one of the most irresistibly endearing, effortlessly heartbreaking child-performers to come along since Shirley Temple hung up her knickerbockers.
Neil Young
THE thriller Eagle Eye boils down to the Little Britain catchphrase: “Computer says ‘No’.” After offering the United States military a low probability appraisal for identifying a Middle Eastern terrorist and being countermanded by the President, the Pentagon’s latest super-computer, Eagle Eye, decides to initiate Project Guillotine. This involves the removal of a “faulty chain of command” for the good of the American people. To this end, the computer uses its ability to tap into and assimilate data from any electronic device to manipulate Copy Cabana employee Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf) and single mother Rachel (Michelle Monaghan) to orchestrate the assassination of the President and his cabinet.
It is hard to argue with a computer that takes control of cranes, transit systems and can speak through any mobile telecommunication device. It is somewhat easier to argue with the logic of this film. Surely someone monitors what Eagle Eye is doing to ensure it does not overstep the limits of its programming?
The eagle-eyed among the audience will identify basic plot shortcomings. Eagle Eye needs Jerry because he is the exact biological double of his twin brother (also played by LaBeouf). This will enable Eagle Eye to command unmanned stealth bombers. Yet if the computer is so uppity, why didn’t it refuse to carry out the assassination that kicks off the movie? If it is restrained by an order issued by Jerry’s brother, whose death it subsequently orchestrates, why is it able to control so many mechanical and electronic devices?
The film maintains suspense through a break-neck pace and barely allows the characters to take a breath. There are some nice contrivances. Jerry and Rachel become bank robbers and steal a briefcase which turns out to contain nothing more than a pair of pistols with a drug to reduce a person’s oxygen intake. Although a high tech aid to the military, Eagle Eye succeeds better as a matchmaker and takes computer dating to a whole new level. This film is seriously silly. Some grace notes are provided by Billy Bob Thornton. “If you don’t find him”, his character, Agent Tom Morgan, barks at an associate, “I’ll get you a job that involves touching shit.”
Patrick Mulcahy
THE new film of Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited is more than a visit to the life of the landed aristocracy. The novel is a classic study of the life of English Roman Catholicism. At its core is the determination of Lady Marchmain to ensure that the Flyte family remain faithful to their religion. The film evokes Waugh’s aim of celebrating her success. The problem of filming the book is the difficulty of showing what is essentially a theological argument in visual terms. The easy way out is to follow the famous television version by focusing on the relationship of middle class atheist Charles Ryder with Sebastian Flyte and his sister Julia. This is what this film does, showing how Ryder (Jeremy Brock) spurns the homosexual relationship) which Sebastian (Ben Whishaw) wants in favour of a heterosexual relationship with Julia (Hayley Atwell), which is ultimately doomed because she turns back to her religion.
Julian Jarrold’s film rightly makes the character of Lady Marchmain the lynchpin, courtesy of a commanding performance by Emma Thompson. It is clear that her faith controls her family’s behaviour. What is unclear is why Catholicism gives her this hold. For Waugh, as a practicing Catholic, it was obvious that the church would win out over Ryder’s love for Julia. However, for a non-believer, the reason for the Flytes’ behaviour is mysterious. A non-believer has to conclude that Waugh cannot show the hold of his faith because it is ultimately irrational. At the end of the story, Ryder remains perplexed and indecisive. Waugh could not provide a solution to his religious objections.
The film is an accurate and entertaining transcription of Waugh’s novel, but is ultimately unsatisfying because it cannot resolve the central flaw in Waugh’s story. The religion driving the Flytes’ behaviour remains enigmatic.
Trevor Fisher
