Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

The Bigger Picture

  • The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Whilst I like to think myself generally well read, I have to confess to there being some very sizeable gaps in my knowledge of literature. I am in my element talking about Dickens, Austen, Chaucer or Hardy but F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway are a different matter. To my shame I have never got around to familiarising myself with the works of “The Lost Generation” - the works of the great American writers based in Paris in the aftermath of the first world war.

    The Snows of Kilimanjaro is based on a short story by Hemingway and tells the story of an American writer, who falls into a fever after being wounded and reflects on his failures both at love and in his writing. His neglected wife takes care for him as he slips into delirium, trying to keep him alive long enough for a plane to arrive to rescue them. In doing so she must listen to him talking of lost loves and prevent him from destroying himself or giving in to his sickness.

    The film opens with writer Harry Street already injured, teasing us with two conflicting accounts of how he was injured. Harry argues that his skin was broken by a thorn in a bizarre twist of fate and that led to his leg becoming infected; his wife says he injured it when saving a young man who had fallen in a fast-moving river.

    Screenwriter Casey Robinson establishes in this early scene each character’s view of Street - Harry sees himself as unlucky and with self-pity, his wife thinks of him as heroic and capable. As the film plays out we learn more about these characters and their relationship, although it is far more interested in Harry’s story than Helen’s.

    Feverishly Harry’s mind races back to growing up in rural Michigan, breaking up with his girlfriend and running away to Europe where he encounters the striking Cynthia Green. As their romance develops, so does his writing. On a safari trip to Africa, Cynthia falls pregnant and, with their relationship at an end, Harry’s life spirals into turmoil. He remembers another failed relationship before meeting Helen, mistaking her for Cynthia not once but twice.

    These short flashbacks vary in interest and quality with the strongest being those centred on Harry and Cynthia, first in Africa and then Spain. Ava Gardner is superb as the playgirl who is challenged by the discovery that she is pregnant, realising that she does not want the same things from life that Harry does. In one scene she tries to tell him that their life will change, hoping that he will respond to the prospect of a new life with a family. The look on her face when he replies is heartbreaking and we know that their romance will be at an end.

    Gregory Peck’s easy charm as Harry perhaps feels a little out of character, yet it does help to explain why women would be interested in a man that bad-tempered and cruel. He handles the sarcastic dialogue well, though at times it seems as if the film would have been better served by someone with a more severe, cutting edge in their performance.

    Susan Hayward, as his wife Helen, is anonymous for large chunks of the narrative as the script requires her to mop Harry’s brow and be patient with him. Only towards the end of the picture is she really tested as an actress as Harry’s sickness worsens and she is required to treat the infection on his leg herself.

    The scenes between Helen and Harry take place, for the most part, on what is clearly a soundstage recreation of a camp in an African clearing. Camera movement feels restricted at points, particularly when compared with some of the often spectacular second camera crew work that was done on location in Egypt and Kenya.

    Director Henry King mostly intercuts between the soundstage material and location footage, doing an acceptable job of marrying the two together although the joins are noticeable. However there is no excusing a sequence on a lake featuring some of the worst back projection I have ever witnessed. I always try to bear in mind the technical limitations of the period when looking at an older film but the poor execution of these shots ruins what ought to have been one of the most tense sequences of the picture.

    His work elsewhere in the picture however is solid and he uses the camera and lighting well to signify a mood of nostalgia and then melancholy. Sound is used well to give the film a haunting, unnerving texture, the sound of animals in the distance giving the film a real sense of place.

    The Snows of Kilimanjaro is not a film that has stood up particularly well to the tests of time. It is hard to overlook its bizarre mesh of stylised, staged dialogue scenes and wildlife footage shot on location or the film’s often slow pacing. Yet for all its faults the film still is affecting and, at moments, moving.


  • Planet of the Apes (2001)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    As in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this ‘reimagining’ is a very different picture from its inspiration.

    Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton’s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around.

    The film’s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader.

    The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff.

    Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton’s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders.

    Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away.

    And that’s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world’s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston’s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually.

    Tim Burton’s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton’s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality.

    The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it’s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti’s quality give such a dull, one note performance.

    Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his ‘reimagining’ is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth.

    Thade’s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him.

    Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg’s Leo than Estella Warren’s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire.

    Burton’s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters.

    Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale.

    The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle’s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 ‘reimagining’; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining.


  • Impromptu (1991)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Impromptu  (1991)

    Apparently a musical impromptu should create a facade of perfect spontaneity, intended to hide the careful, almost mathematical constructions that make them work. It should feel almost improvised, as if it is being created at that very moment.

    The title of this film by James Lapine refers explicitly to composer Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu but could just as well describe the style of the piece. Here we are introduced to a cast of brilliant, extravagant artistic personalities and we watch them interact and attempt to hide their machinations and true purposes from one another.

    Impromptu tells the story of noted author George Sand (real name Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin) who became noted for taking a man’s name, smoking cigars and dressing in male attire. She shocked the establishment at the time by refusing to dress or act like a conventional woman and lived a scandalous lifestyle, marrying a baron and then leaving him aged 27 to go to Paris where she led a number of high profile affairs.

    Judy Davis plays Sand and invests her with an appealing swagger exuding self-assurance and sexual energy. Like many great artists she lives life with a passionate energy, picking an obsession and then chasing it. From the earliest scenes of the movie we see this play out in the creation of her novels as she works long into the night and then sleeps through half the day.

    We follow Sand’s attempts to ensnare Polish composer Frédéric Chopin, a sickly and timid young man who seems to be permanently at death’s door. When she hears his music she is entranced and is determined to have him, despite making a poor first impression on him.

    Like a musical impromptu, this film has its purpose but delights in running off in comical whims, such as a duel between two of her former lovers, and throwing in unexpected twists and turns. This lends the film a floaty, dreamy quality as the characters dance around each other and the rhythm of the piece changes.

    Hugh Grant is cast opposite Judy Davis as Chopin but has little chemistry with her. Characterisation of that legendary composer is slight, consisting of little more than a cough and looking a little bit sorry for himself. The film is far stronger when talking about his maladies and his temprement than when it tries to show them to us.

    The film also portrays several other notable artists of the period including playwright Alfred de Musset, composer Franz Liszt, Romantic artist Eugène Delacroix and novelist Felicien Mallefille. Each are superbly portrayed by an accomplished cast but all are upstaged by Emma Thompson’s turn as the Duchess d’Antan, an aspiring socialite who wants to be surrounded by the greatest artists of her time. One scene when she welcomes them to her home, giving each a laurel wreath, is a particular delight.

    These scenes set in the d’Antan estate are lively and frequently very funny, veering from bedroom-hopping farce to slapstick to teasing wordplay and a literally explosive ending. As well as satirising the misguided attitudes that patrons of the arts can develop, these scenes also explore the corrosive relationships that can develop between artists as they push each other to self-destructing ends.

    Once the characters depart the estate the film sadly takes a turn towards the conventional, morphing into a more traditional romance albeit with female and male roles reversed. In these sections the film’s impromptu facade falls and its structure becomes more evident as we are guided towards an uncomfortably clean ending.

    Films full of famous figures run a significant risk of revelling too much in the fame of their characters rather than entertaining with a good story. On too many occassions such films can degenerate into checklists of historical figures of the period. Thankfully Impromptu focuses instead on narrative and characterisation.

    Hugh Grant’s wet Chopin is the weakest link in the film, diminishing the character’s presence to portray the composer’s fragile health. He tells us at one point that he feels almost as if he is a spirit, floating in music yet Grant conveys little sense of detachment from his physical self. It is Judy Davis as Sand that makes him believeable and her passion gives his character the stature it needs.

    I wished at points that it was more ambitious and more challenging as a film. That the story would match the off-kilter nature of its central character. Yet whilst Impromptu never pushes boundaries as hard as it might, strong performances from Davis and the supporting cast and enjoyable comic moments ensure that it is a film that succeeds more often than it fails.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<September 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
31123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829301234
567891011


Categories
 


Advertisement