Requiem for a Theme

I realize I've talked about Batman v Superman on end for a couple of weeks now, and I'd like to apologize in advance for any redundancies that may appear throughout this review.

I do think its important that I tell you right now that I don't intend to discuss any of the things I have already put forth in my original Batman v Superman piece. The piece you are currently reading is a review and analysis of the film's score, as composed by Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL (Tom Holkenborg). If you're curious about my thoughts on other aspects of the movie, my spoiler filled "review" is up on the blog, and can be found here: 

http://malamamovies.blogspot.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-and-its-problems.html

Now, let's get into it. NO SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW, I PROMISE.

THE MUSIC OF BATMAN V SUPERMAN

To call this score "good" is to criminally underestimate just how artful each theme is. From the triumphant and hopeful virtue of Superman's Man of Steel theme, to Batman's dark and twisted ode to the fallen, Batman v Superman's musical score is a resounding success in every artistic sense of the word. 

This is a film about the people behind the heroes; the living, breathing, mortal beings that are either trying to be super, or are deeply affected by the actions of those who already are. Just like real humans, the characters in Batman v Superman are individuals, unique and even flawed in their thinking, good or evil, powerful or weak. Where the characters and story are already successful in capturing both epic scope and close intimacy, the pressure is of course on the musical minds behind the score to compliment what is already there in the script. The goal of the composer here is not to overshadow or outmatch, but rather to pair images with sound unequivocally. If you've done that with your score, then you've succeeded in adding new and interesting layers to what is hopefully already a great film. 

THIS IS MY WORLD

Man of Steel may have pushed the "hope" theme as best it could, but I think a lot of us would agree that the creative minds behind that reboot were a little less than successful in making us feel any sort of hope. For Superman to now stand for something that big, and that important, is an excellent idea, and not something that has necessarily been tried with that character on the big screen. The "S" on Clark's chest no longer serves to brand or advertise our hero, instead it now represents the ideal for which he fights. That is some cool shit, and it wasn't until I was sitting in the theater and watching this movie unfold that it really sunk in for me just how vital "hope" is to Superman.

This is someone who we perceive to be above, in a place from which our other hero (Batman) has notably fallen. Batman remarks, "There was a time before. A time above...There were happy things. Diamond absolutes...But things fall. Things on Earth. And what falls...is fallen." Superman occupies the place that Batman wishes he could. The most God-like quality of Superman is the "savior from on high" nature of his being. A character like that needs a big song. Something larger than life and holy, something royal in a way. 

That's not Superman's theme.

If there's one thing Man of Steel got right, it was Zimmer's interpretation of the Superman character in the form of his theme. Superman was not raised a God. He was raised Clark Joseph Kent. A mortal. A man.

Despite what anyone (including Batman) may think of him, Superman is a person, torn between two worlds. His theme is not grand, nor is he immaculate. His theme is that of a person who sees good in places no one else can. His theme is that of a man taught from the start to save those who need him, regardless of whether or not he is in a place to decide who deserves saving. Superman's theme is that of a hero, not a just a God who decided to come down to Earth, but a person, who decided to do the right thing when he got here. To put it as plainly as I can, Superman's theme is that of a hopeful person. 

When I hear Zimmer's "This is My World", I can't help but hope. 

BEAUTIFUL LIE

What a fucking brilliant title, and for a Batman theme song no less.

Where Superman sees the good in mankind and hopes to inspire more of it, Batman has accepted the futility of superhero-ing. A younger Batman might have believed that every life is worth protecting, or rather that killing is what separates the villains from the heroes, but this Batman knows better. He won't go out of his way to kill a criminal, but when they get in his way, he has no time to waste on being gentle with them, especially considering he has the "Krytponian Threat" to deal with.

Batman's theme isn't hopeful, and it isn't happy. It's tragic, just like the character for which it was written. Batman exists on a level that Superman could never sink to, just like Superman exists on a level to which Batman could never ascend. The "Beautiful Lie", as Lex Luthor puts it rather eloquently later in the film, is that power can be innocent. Or rather, in the case of Batman, that there is power in innocence. That is what he tells himself, that is the white light that the bats carried him to when he was a child, but on the other side of that life, he has finally come to see that no one stays good. No one can keep clean forever. The "lie" is that he could ever be a hero, that he could ever be what Superman is. 

THE RED CAPES ARE COMING

Say what you will about this portrayal of the character of Lex Luthor, but I have come to love it. It isn't just that it's different or dynamic, it's that the character is perfect for the story that Terrio and Snyder are trying to tell. The traditional Lex Luthor would be too similar to the Bruce Wayne that is characterized in Batman v Superman, so in my mind, giving the character a face lift makes a lot of sense logistically for this film. The million dollar question of course is, "How's his theme?".

Fucking incredible.

It's boisterous, it's bold, it's maniacal, and above all, it is fit for a villain. Lex's theme is a sort of classical evil. It takes what is hopeful or humble about Superman's theme and inverts it, managing to revel in its genius without coming across as indulgent on the part of Zimmer. 

Lex as a villain works as a foil to Superman for the same reason the Joker acts as Batman's perfect opposite. Lex sees the big picture, he works on the macro scale. Where Joker is adept at targeting the individual, and unraveling sanity or security from within the singular person, Lex thrives as a villain and a business man because he can manipulate several moving pieces at one time. Lex has his sights set on the end game, he concerns himself with matters of galactic significance, he toys with tyrants and Gods. His theme reflects the mentality of a man who could match Superman, and knows it. 

Luthor's theme is full of itself, and that is the best way I can describe it. It's fun to let go of all the modern conventions and stigmas regarding what we can and can't enjoy when it comes to superhero films. Luthor's theme is fit for a bad guy of the Saturday morning variety. There's something old school about his evil, and I appreciate that deeply. It not only demonstrates a commitment to the new direction of these characters, but also a fundamental understanding of what makes Lex Luthor so goddamn entertaining to watch. 

IS SHE WITH YOU?

Don't even act like you weren't the least bit excited when Wonder Woman hopped on the scene and this theme started playing. If I want to convince you of anything by writing this review, it's that every theme not only fits each character individually, but all of the themes together work harmoniously to create a sense of cooperation between heroes (or parallels between the heroes and villains). Wonder Woman's theme is the perfect example of how much thought and work was put into getting us all hyped as fuck to see these Gods meet on screen.

Wonder Woman's theme is a sporadic clash of wailing electric guitar, impelling (almost military) percussion, and moving orchestral swells of heroic proportions. Paired with the visual delight of seeing Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman fighting Doomsday in tandem with Supes and Bats, this theme comes across as a unifying piece of music, bridging the gap between the This is My World and Beautiful Lie. This is the theme, much like Luthor's, that is just allowed to be fun. Wonder Woman lives for the thrill of battle, and though she is never the bringer of violence, when a fight comes her way she isn't one to back down. This is supposed to be one of the DC universe's greatest combatants, and here, it shows. 

SPECUALTION (SPOILERS)

Ok in this section I'll be discussing two theories that I have regarding the songs Must There Be a Superman and This My World. Spoilers for the end of Batman v Superman are ahead. If you don't want to have anything spoiled for you, skip ahead to the END SPOILER TAG, and read on from there. 

I happen to think that the first glimpse we get of Darkseid's theme comes in the form of the opening of Must There Be a Superman. It's a frightening cacophony of voices that really helps to sell the sense of terror and urgency that a villain like Darkseid would inspire. In Must There Be a Superman, I hear the end of all mankind, and it's as beautiful as it is deeply disturbing. Give it a listen to see what I mean.

I also happen to think that at the moment Superman sacrifices himself, pushing the Kryptonite spear into Doomsday, what happens musically in This is My World might just hint at what ends up being the Justice League theme song. Watch the scene again, listen for the moment I just described, you should hear it. It's a moment of music that you can't really relegate to Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman's theme. It just sounds bigger, and more triumphant than any of those individual songs. 

END SPOILERS

This is a masterful work and I mean that. Whether you love or hate Batman v Superman, I don't think there can be any confusion over the fact that this score compliments every character, and every scene. There is something to love in every song, including the ones that I haven't mentioned. I promise you that.

Also Batman v Superman rocks...

Thanks for reading, stay happy. 

"Batman v Superman" and Its "Problems" (SPOILER DISSECTION)

This poster is majestic as FUCK.

Believe you me, no one was more surprised by the sheer quality of this movie than I. Yes, yes, I did like Batman v Superman. In fact I loved it. I understand (and resent) the fact that I am in the minority on that. Here we are handed one of the great superhero movies of our time and somehow, for reasons I can't yet entirely comprehend, people are refusing to actually consider how artful and intelligent the project is. I can't make sense of the proposed negatives of Batman v Superman, but I can make sense of how well it is made. So that's what I'll do here. It is my intention to address the most common criticisms this movie has received. I hope I hit everything, though I may leave out some positives, and please beware, for there are SPOILERS AHEAD. If anything I say doesn't make sense to you, or you don't believe what I say to be true, please, let me know how and why. But also understand that the following piece will contain very little speculation and assumption. I will only be addressing the solutions to people's problems with BvS that can actually be found within the movie itself, just to avoid any ambiguity. This is not me over-analyzing or making excuses. These are the answers present in the film itself to the questions many feel were left unanswered.
                                                                                                               

BATMAN

For those of you still unclear on Batman's reasons for hating Superman/Falling for Lex Luthor's manipulations, allow me to explain, while also addressing another major Batman v Superman complaint (He kills people now). Snyder's new Batman is not a stable fellow, nor is he entirely good, at the very least not in the traditional sense. This is Frank Miller's Batman, a vigilante made tired and weary by years of taking super special care not to hurt any bad guys too severely. This is a Batman who, much like a prequel trilogy Sith Lord, deals in absolutes. He is blinded by a rage he can't see past, and a desire to make a permanent change, something Batman has rarely ever been able to do. As Bruce Wayne tells Alfred in the film, "criminals are like weeds", it matters not how many times you put them away, some new evil-doer will always spring back up to take their place. If you still wish someone had spoon-fed you an explanation for why Batman kills people now in the movie, then I feel obligated to tell you that sometimes, when you watch movies, information is conveyed to you, the viewer, more implicitly than explicitly. That's what we call GOOD EXPOSITION, as opposed to needless exposition. So when Alfred says something like, "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage. The feeling of powerlessness. That turns good men...cruel," or when Batman states outright, "We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals, nothing's changed," and Alfred responds with, "Everything's changed," maybe, just maybe, we are being left to infer that this is a very different, potentially misguided Batman. A man who kills, a man who strikes fear into the hearts of those he is protecting. That is the "cruelty" to which Alfred refers. Remember when the cops showed up at that building early in the film with the people locked in the cage in the basement? Those people, though rescued by Batman, were terrified of him and his tactics. That's the kind of shit I'm talking about.

If you wanted the noble Batman who would be rational enough to see past Lex's tricks, then great, you get that Batman by the time the film is over. However he starts in a very different place, a place where you the viewer are actually unsure of the "good" or "justice" he's upholding. Think back to the moment Bruce saves that girl in the wreckage of the Wayne Tower, and he looks up and watches Zod and Superman fly through the air. The expression on his face is not one of fear, it's one of anger, pure and seething. In Bruce's eyes, Superman is the ultimate villain, and villains do not change. It is a dangerous "us versus them" or rather "us versus HIM" mentality that allows Bruce to separate himself from Clark enough to invest all of his disdain in him without any of the compassion that comes along with disagreeing with a fellow HUMAN. So to hear that this "alien" has  a human mother named Martha, as well as seeing this alien sacrifice himself to save humanity from a much greater threat, OF COURSE that changes Batman's mind. In fact if you pay attention, during the Batman and Superman showdown, Batman's mask is damaged and the thick metal helmet surrounding his face is cracked open. His "mind" is literally OPENED, and it is only after that happens that he learns of Clark's mother. The visual cue is a neat little nod to what is happening thematically.

Batman's reaction to Superman's death makes sense as well if you consider what I've stated above. Batman realizes that Superman was one of the world's greatest assets (a TRULY good person, with the desire and power to protect humanity) and in saying "I failed him in life..." comes to terms with how fighting Superman was a mistake. Now the world is vulnerable, and Bruce feels it is his duty to locate any meta-humans that he can and prepare them to defend the planet in Superman's absence. Bruce fucked up big time, and forming the Justice League is his way of righting those wrongs.

Also, in reference to Batman's sudden decision to spare Superman...well I just sorta cleared that up I suppose. Additionally if you don't like the nightmarish dream sequences then fine, but do understand that those are both a prominent feature of the Frank Miller Batman, AND that they help develop Bruce's feeling of paranoia, which may or may not be well-founded.

SUPERMAN

Ok sure, there is a monument to Superman built soon after he saves Metropolis (make no mistake, despite the destruction and casualties, he 100% saved a good number of people). Many of you might think this is inconsistent with everyone's apparent hatred of Superman in the film, and if you feel that way, you didn't pay attention. First off, not everyone wants that monument there. A lot of people see it as being indicative of the idolization of Superman and this is made abundantly clear by the desecration of the statue. In case the painting of "False God" on the Superman logo wasn't on the nose enough for you, I'll just say that people in the film certainly disagree over whether or not the statue should even exist.  Secondly, there are plenty of humans in the film that fucking LOVE Supes, and they make that clear. Just like in real life, there are people on both sides of the issue.

The issue of Superman is a complex one. To boil it down as efficiently as the movie does, I'll explain it like this: Civilians primarily love Superman simply because Superman saves civilians. That's kind of his big thing. Not every civilian loves him, but most do. However, the government is not his biggest fan. Now when you work for the government you (in theory) work for the American people. Yet here is this God-like creature who operates outside of that chain of command. How do you hold a person like that accountable when they can fly off the planet whenever they want? That is the big issue, that is why Senator Finch sees Superman as a problem. Finch is not as extreme as Batman, nor is she as devious as Lex. She has an ethical issue with the existence of Superman, and works to bring him in without ever over-stepping her boundaries as senator or breaking the law. She's one of the good guys, and she is killed for it.

Also, Superman's death. It was sudden, it was abrupt, it was out of the blue, but it makes such perfect sense. Superman proves Batman wrong and changes his mind because in the instant where he realizes Doomsday can't be reasoned with or stopped, he decides (without hesitation) to sacrifice himself. THAT is the Superman I have always known and loved.

Now why is Superman blamed for the fiasco in Africa? Well it is simple. Nobody (except for Lex, and eventually Lois) knows what really went down in that town. Here is what Finch knows: Superman entered a hostile situation on foreign soil in which the CIA was implicated and acted with total autonomy to save his girlfriend. Just take a second to consider the real-world ramifications of that decision. When Lois says she isn't sure if Superman can "love [her] and be [him]" she means that she isn't sure that he can rush in and save her whenever she's in trouble without incurring the wrath of the government and US citizens who want him to go through the same red tape every government agent has to go through before FLYING TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY AND TAKING PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AMERICAN DOWN.

LEX LUTHOR

I won't fault you for disliking this portrayal of Lex, it is certainly different, and it takes some getting used to. However do not make the mistake of classifying his motivations as "sloppy", because they are so SO clear. Lex hates Superman, that has always been a thing, but this movie takes that concept a step further, and even does us the favor of spelling that shit out in a pivotal roof-top scene. Lex wants Superman to fight Batman because if Superman loses, he is dead and therefore he is not all-powerful. However, if Superman wins, then he has killed Batman for selfish reasons (saving Martha) and is therefore not all-good. The common and Christian definition of God is that of a being who is both benevolent and all-powerful. In Lex's mind, no matter the outcome of the Batman v Superman fight, Superman has proven to the world that he is not a God. That is what it boils down to. Doomsday is just extra insurance.

If you feel as though they didn't do the character of Doomsday justice, then fine, but don't all of a sudden pretend that Doomsday has always been one of you favorite characters just because they did something different with him. Doomsday from his very conception has been a character with little to no development who is thrown into the story at random for the sole purpose of killing Superman. That has ALWAYS been his use for the writers of Superman stories. If anything, Doomsday's creation and birth is better explained/explored/hinted at throughout Batman v Superman than in any of his comic book/animated film outings. There is really no other way to do a character like Doomsday, the motherfucker doesn't speak or think, he can't be on screen for too long, nor can he be a movie's ONLY villain.

WONDER WOMAN

I'll sort of give you this one. The big issue here is the fact that Diana wants her photo back despite the fact that she has already left the world of man. Why does she want to keep her identity/immortality a secret? Well I can venture a guess even though it is never confirmed in the film. Upon seeing the chaos Superman's existence has caused in the world of man, Diana might desire to insulate herself from being involved by retrieving the only proof that exists that she is immortal. Not that she's scared of how people will react, but she certainly doesn't want people investigating her origin (Themyscira). Leaving the world of man entails protecting her world from man, and that would mean keeping anyone from asking too many questions.

PACING

This movie has a different cadence to it than  Marvel movies generally do. Where MCU entries rely on ever-expanding action set-pieces to keep us watching mostly static characters, Batman v Superman clearly put its characters first, taking the time to make sure that it makes sense for action to happen before it does. Before Batman and Superman can actually fight, they must be brought to the point emotionally and logically where they WOULD  fight. It's the Godzilla (2014) problem. Audiences wanted more 'splosions and monsters without considering how sitting back and watching tension rise between characters might have actually enhanced the experience when the fighting went down. In terms of cutting the run time down, there are some scenes here or there that I could see being omitted, but I don't consider any of these scenes superfluous. I don't want any of them gone, however they could hypothetically be cut out, at the expense of the already exquisite character development. Next time you watch Batman v Superman should you watch it again, take note of how efficiently the information is delivered during each scene. Pay close attention to how each scene is written and structured to maximize time.

THEMES

There is a lot going on here thematically, and this is where the analysis/reading between the lines comes more into play. Terrio's screenplay dives into theology, morality, mortality, things that we would be discussing were superheroes to actually exist. I just think it is important that we take the time to consider what this script has to say about "heroes". Take Lex Luthor for example, a character who gets off on the idea of manipulating Gods. He orchestrates this grudge match not only because he wants to see Superman defeated in the ideological sense, but also because he is proving to himself that there is no person he cannot steer in a useful direction. He sees people not as friends, or family, or thinkers, but as pawns. For him, human beings stand between him and his endgame, whatever that may be to him at one time. It's exciting to think how this will contrast with the new Joker we're getting this summer; a force of chaos who is interested less in the big picture cosmic level stuff, and more in targeting the individual. Lex may have Darkseid coming to Earth, but the Joker took a healthy, sane human being (Harley) and broke her utterly and irreparably. Two sides of the same spectrum of evil.

                                                    ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS 

I'll be the first to admit that this movie is packed with things. However, Marvel had a whole first phase to get the ball rolling on their shared universe without any pressure from the competition (DC). Now, in a world where Marvel is killing the game, the folks at WB and DC have managed to work an insane amount of necessary information into a single film. On top of all that, this movie feels vastly different from any MCU entry. That is commendable. Working on a scale this big without copying the people who have been the most successful.

My biggest fear is that the reception Batman v Superman gets will influence the decisions of the producers at Warner Bros. I do not want that to happen. I don't want anything about the trajectory of this franchise to change. If Batman v Superman is any indication, this could dethrone the MCU as being the go-to set of superhero movies.

Again, if any of this doesn't make sense to you, let me know. I would like to open up a discussion with the people who deny that any of this is present and clear in the movie itself. I would have liked to have delved into more of this movie's coolness, but I also wanted to be concise in addressing the main concerns people have. I don't mean to come off as pretentious in saying that people aren't doing enough thinking while watching this film, but I can't help but feel as though the poor reception is less about the quality of the movie and more about the subversion of most expectations.

Here's a list of stuff I really liked about Batman v Superman that I would have talked about but couldn't really fit in this piece:

Costuming and Production Design
Cinematography
Acting
Score (FUCK THIS SCORE IS GOOD IN FACT I'M DOING A SEPARATE REVIEW JUST OF THIS MOVIE'S SCORE SO LOOK OUT FOR THAT)
Action Sequences
Suspense/Tension Building
Character Development
Easter Eggs and Fan Service
New DC Shared Universe

Ok.

That's my two cents.

Thanks for reading.

"The rules only make sense if you force it to..."
                               
                                                        -Zack Snyder's Batman.
Fucking love it.

The Filth Element

Remember when I wrote that piece with the cheeky Ghibli pun in the title about Sicario and how much I appreciate well written anti-heroic characters? Neither do I.

Anywho, Filth.

This is another one of those movies that looks like one thing while being another. Trust me, I saw all the trailers, I read all the descriptions, I figured I knew what I was expecting the first time I gave this movie a watch.

Fucking Wow.

This movie was released in 2014 in the states, but I'm discussing it now, and here's why. I have a problem with people not seeing good movies. Now I'm not saying I have a problem with the people themselves. If you haven't seen Filth, it probably isn't your fault. But as a person who's seen it and analyzed it, I feel compelled to inform as many folks as I can that this movie is out there, and on Netflix for your viewing pleasure, should this review convince you to give it a look. That's all. I promise I'll get back to talking about shit movies soon, because those are always fun.

OK YEAH FILTH, THE MOVIE, HERE WE GO

I'll start with the writing. Themes, characters, basic plot, etc. Filth the film, as well as the novel on which it is based, chronicles the efforts of Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson to earn a coveted workplace promotion. Between doing his job and doing all the drugs under the sun, Bruce also finds time for what he refers to affectionately as "The Games": a series of cruel and immature pranks that he pulls on his acquaintances and workmates.

This is Bruce.

Bruce is a bastard.

He's a misogynistic racist, violent, sarcastic, sadistic, dishonest, homophobic asshole of a man, and he is hurting inside. Bruce's struggle with his addictions and his torture of the people he seems intent on surrounding himself with are just parts of the larger arc that makes his story so unique. Bruce's big problem can be boiled down to control.

Bruce is a cop, and states at a point in the film that he decided to become one after witnessing police brutality in his hometown and desiring to be a part of it. All his life he's been taught and told by the authority figures in his life that as a man, and as an officer, his word is law. He is supposed to be in control. The issue Bruce has is, he just isn't.

He can't control his urges and addictions, he can't control his temper, he can't control the way he feels, nor can he reconcile his darker impulses with the desire he he has to be a better man. So he exerts the control he doesn't possess over himself on the people around him. He abuses his power as a policeman over civilians on more occasions than one, and he manipulates his "friends" into either doing his bidding or attacking each other, either scenario getting him closer to the promotion that he equates with ultimate power. To Bruce, the promotion equals control. It also represents some other things, but I won't get into that in this review. These are conclusions you should come to yourself while watching the movie.

This is a damaged man, and that is made clear from the very beginning. Over the course of a bizarre, original, and at times scary story, Bruce's antics go from moments of comic relief to indications of a deep-seated psychological problem, and the subtlety of that switch is really what will catch you off-guard. Filth is first and foremost a character study.

The world Bruce occupies, the world we see on screen, is a hyper-real one. I mean just look at that picture above of Jamie Bell holding fistfuls of cocaine. That isn't realistic, people don't do that. Not even coke heads do that. Nobody has enough coke for that kind of pose, and those that do aren't interested in making a mess with it. Not that I would know. Ok I have clearly drifted too far from the point.

In Bruce's mind, everyone is a cartoon, a stereotype. Every person he encounters has to fit snugly into a category, otherwise he would be forced to see them as people, and would then have to empathize with those that he manipulates.

This is where the sweet sweet satire comes into play.

Bruce, the brutish police officer, is presented as a stereotype himself, and is deconstructed and humanized over the course of the film much like the other characters are. At the film's beginning, Bruce sorts people into sections, and places himself above them all. He is the man of the house, so-to-speak, too righteous and intelligent to consort with the other scum of the earth. He exists merely to govern the stupid and the hopeless, and takes what enjoyment he can in playing sick games with the pawns he refuses to see as people. We see every character the way Bruce does, and that includes the way Bruce sees himself. He's the "pig". The officer with too much power and not enough understanding.

Then things change, and shit gets real.

Think back to Fight Club. David Fincher's 1999 cult classic tells the story of a nameless narrator who starts a fight club with a charismatic stranger and soon realizes he is in over his head. The world of Fight Club, the world we see, is a surreal one. It's cartoon-y and weird, and things don't happen the way you think they would in the real space we, the viewers, occupy. Yet over the course of that film, the consequences of the narrator's actions become more real, and so do the people around him. We realize that the space that he lived in previously only APPEARED to be exaggerated and fake, simply because we were seeing things through that character's eyes. And that character, a sleep-deprived, disillusioned, self-loathing consumer, chose to paint his world in a different coat, despite what true colors hid underneath.

Filth's setting is similar. Not the identical, but similar. In spirit, that is. Not in execution.

The performances on display here are good. Nothing necessarily worthy of special praise on the parts of the secondary characters. Every actor fit their role well, that is to say, nobody stood out as being wrong for the part that they were playing. Imogen Poots, Eddie Marsan, and Jamie Bell stand out in my mind as having really put their best foots forward.

Oh yeah, this is the best performance of James McAvoy's career. Just by the way.

You know that thing actors do where they get cast in a role you wouldn't expect them to take, and you see their performance, and it subverts any and all connotations associated with that actor? For example, you couldn't see Leonardo DiCaprio as a villainous slave owner, but then you saw him as a villainous slave owner and you realized it was perfect. Yeah, shit's crazy, right?. McAvoy doesn't stand out in my head as being the go-to guy for the part of a psychotic detective with numerous addictions and a penchant for violence, and yet, here he is, devoting himself fully to it. He kills it, so props were props are due. I've never seen him dive to such depths, and I was truly impressed and inspired.

The direction is tight and understated. On first viewing, you won't catch all of the nifty visual cues as to the twists and turns of Bruce's arc, but once you spot them, you'll realize just how organized the movie's chaos really is. Jon S. Baird, the writer and director, had a clear vision for this adaptation of the esoteric Irvine Welsh work, and he realized it beautifully. The blocking is deliberate and precise and the editing is skillful. Technically, Filth is airtight. The lighting, the sound mixing and design, the production design, I have not one issue with the way it was all handled.

Also the soundtrack is absolutely incredible, and I mean that. Either the song used in a particular sequence contrasts tonally with the harsh nature of the subject material (Love Really Hurts Without You- Billy Ocean), or it accompanies the visuals harmoniously, and serves to evoke the emotions Baird intends for us to feel (Creep- Radiohead). In either case, it's a brilliant compilation of songs, all great in their own rights.

Baird and McAvoy aren't interested in making the character of Bruce likable. It's never necessary that a viewer like or agree with a character in order to enjoy watching the movie in which they are featured. Instead, the two opt to focus on making Bruce human, and in doing so successfully, they ensure that the viewer empathizes to some extent almost by default. As an actor/writer it's all a matter of understanding what makes your character who they are, no matter who that is. The ticks, the troubles, the origins of their problems. These are the things that help humans recognize other humans. Tap into that, and you've created a character worth watching.

Filth is deceptive. Watch a trailer and you'll get what I mean. Just trust me on one thing. If you haven't seen Filth and you feel like you have an idea of what it's about and what will happen, you're not entirely correct. Whatever the things are that you think, I guarantee that at some point during the movie you will stand corrected.

Look at him. He looks so angry. Jesus. I did not think I'd ever see the day James McAvoy made a face like that in a movie.

If you're easily offended, sit this one out. Maybe there's some enjoyment to be had for you, especially in the form of the wonderful (albeit it terrifying) commentary the movie is trying make, but it's also more than likely that you'll just end up turning the movie off out of discomfort long before you make it to the scenes where that commentary really comes into play.

Baird uses this movie as a platform for holding a mirror up to the many facets of modern society that need be examined. Some of the things this movie has to tell us about ourselves are ugly, and scary and hard to face in the fictional sense, let alone in a real world context. However if at any point you find yourself shocked and appalled, before your criticize the film for what it's showing you, maybe consider the reasons why Baird might choose to put those things on-screen. Look around and within before placing judgement, though that's probably just a good rule of thumb for life in general.

This movie starts conversations, all of which you and most people don't want to have, myself included. But every second we spend afraid of addressing real problems is a second we could be devoting to making progress. The "filth" you'll see in the movie isn't needless, it doesn't just exist for it's own sake, it is intentional, and that's what I love about it. It might take a second or third viewing for that to settle in, it certainly did for me.

By the way, and I know I said this for The One I Love, but I'll say it here too because fuck it; this movie's ending is perfect, and again, one of my all time favorites. It works on so many levels, and the more times you watch the movie, the more of those levels you'll see.

Shout out to the people who I keep recommending this movie too who continually refuse to watch it, this piece is for you, be on the right side of history my friends.

Thanks for reading.

"Same rules apply."

The Duplass Menagerie

Film criticism is interesting. Here's what's so interesting about it. You might have noticed that here, on my blog, I don't give films ratings or grades. Well that's deliberate in a way. When you call a film flawless, that is to say, it is a "perfect" movie, you are implying that there is some checklist of things that, should a movie meet said requirements, earns the film an A+. The only problem with that is we can't come up with a list of things a movie should do because every movie is trying to do something different. There can't be a standardized scale by which a movie is judged because the requirements change from film to film, and accounting for that in a mathematical way is just kind of impossible. So when a reviewer of movies uses a rating system, you are accepting that there is a level of bias inherent in that system.

One critic's 100% is not the same as another critic's 10/10, and as readers of reviews, you guys get that. Conversely, when a reviewer doesn't use a rating system, which is ok too, you are accepting as the readers that this reviewer is trusting you to take the words they have written and to do some critical thought yourselves, coming to your own conclusions about how much or how little you would like the movie they are discussing. You are being asked to rate the film yourselves in a way. So just keep in mind that when I call a movie "perfect", or "flawless" I am not suggesting that there can exist a perfect movie, and that this movie is that. I don't believe such a movie can exist. What I am suggesting is that I, with my many biases and preferences, believe that film to be without flaw. Ok, now that we've covered this...

Perfect movie.

(No Spoilers In This One)

Also yes I know that that's technically the cover for the soundtrack, but it's the same as the movie poster, so whatever. Not worth the time it would take to change the picture. 

When you set out to do something like write a thriller, or a comedy, or a romance, or any combination of the three, you are setting yourself up for failure. Either you're trying to write one of those stories, and do it well, in which case you have a century's worth of cliches and recycled plots working against you, OR you're trying to combine all three into one story, which can and should be a complete tonal nightmare. 

Now imagine a movie that did all those things, the thrills, the laughs, the love, and did them successfully. Sounds like a great fucking time, now doesn't it?

The One I Love is more than just the sum of its parts. It is a truly original, truly captivating, truly funny story of two regular people, who share a very irregular weekend together. 

Ethan (Mark Duplass) and Sophie (Elizabeth Moss) are struggling to keep their marriage intact, even resorting to seeking the help of a comically unorthodox therapist (Ted Danson) in doing so. Danson's therapist character recommends the two take a weekend holiday together in a secluded house in the country, and what starts off as a cute little trip quickly turns weird and unnerving. 

It's best if you don't know any more than that.

The performances on display here are phenomenal, and I mean that so sincerely. Moss and Duplass shine in roles seemingly written for the expressed purpose of examining popular stock characters in the modern romantic comedy. Neither one of them completely is or isn't the character you think they are, and as the story progresses, that becomes more and more apparent. 

Thematically, this movie tackles something very familiar to a lot of people. The feeling of losing something and being powerless to get it back. In the case of Ethan and Sophie, that something is a memory. An image of their past selves, romantic and happy people that time and betrayal have made almost unrecognizable. That is the heart of this film. Trying and failing to relive the past versus moving on and having new experiences with, get ready for it, the one you love. BOOM. USED THE TITLE, BOO YAH, GET AT ME, I'M A BEAST, THAT WAS DEFINITELY AS IMPRESSIVE AS I THINK IT WAS.

The chemistry between the leads is fantastic. Every line, every situation, every instance of eye contact feels real and charged with the kind of emotion you would expect to be brewing between two married individuals with some very intense trust issues. I didn't just laugh when these two were on screen together, I gasped, I cried (not actually), I cringed, I yelled, I went on the journey with these actors and I couldn't think of another pair of people that could've done it better. At least for the particular story this movie was trying to tell. 

There's something old school about this movie that I really appreciate. It feels like a modern spin on a Hitchcockian sort of concept; there's a gimmick at play here, a "thing" that makes this movie unique and appealing (even though I'd rather not say what) and that reminds me a lot of the old Hollywood way of doing things. 

The cinematography is fantastic. As natural as the lighting feels and looks, the craftiness with which certain shots must have been achieved is something to really admire. Watch the movie if you want to really get what I mean by that. 

Charlie McDowell's direction is equally as skilled. This is really Ethan and Sophie's story, and special care is taken to stress the important of 2's and symmetry in the framing and blocking of every sequence. Just look at the frame pictured above, look past the actors sitting on the floor and at the space itself. The film is filled to the brim with imagery as wonderful as that right there.

I personally love this kind of shit. Small, intimate films, that you can tell are produced around great scripts and new ideas. This is the process I want to see more of, hell, this is the process I want to be a part of. At the end of the day, the movies that make us think, and keep us thinking long after the last frame has cut or faded to black, those are the movies that really inspire me. This is undoubtedly one of those movies. 

This is the kind of movie that tricks you into thinking it was easier to make than it actually was. Every movement looks unplanned, every moment feels like it just happened to happen while a camera was rolling. As shell-shocking as certain revelations might be, when characters surprise you, it never feels forced or unnecessary. Every plot twist feels earned and intriguing, and every story beat only serves to add something to the story that's being told. Oh yeah, by the way, the ending? One of my absolute favorites. I won't say another word.

Now do you see what I mean about the "flawless" movie? Sure if I was comparing this film to Citizen Kane I could give you a dozen examples of things it doesn't do correctly, but this movie isn't supposed to be Citizen Kane, and it would be wrong of me to try and make that comparison. This film is trying to do and say certain things, and it is my view that it is successful in doing all of it. Just like a philosophical proof can be valid by the rules and standards it establishes, regardless of whether you agree with the proof's conclusion, a movie can succeed in doing what it sets out to do regardless of whether or not you like the movie. 

I don't care how jaded or bored you might think you are when it comes to movies, this one will surprise you, and I pretty much guarantee that. I can't really recommend it more than I already have, so I'll just say, please, PLEASE, seek this movie out. If you are even the least bit curious why I had to hold back so much of the plot in this review, if you have any desire at all to know what this movie's "thing" is, give it a watch and your questions will be answered. The mystique and uncertainty is what had me anticipating this movie so highly in the first place, so hopefully, you're feeling like giving it a chance by now. For those of you with Netflix, it's on there, so, you don't have to go anywhere. It would almost be easier to watch it than to avoid it at this point. 

Thanks for reading, and for those of you who HAVE seen the movie, and know what goes down, or any of you who watch it in the near future, post any comments and let me know if you'd like me to go in depth with spoilers, and maybe decode what this movie is trying to say. It's the kind of thing I'd be down to write anyways, but I'll definitely give it a go if any of y'all would want to read it. Thanks, and stay lovely, my friends. 

Chasing Amy

This isn't an easy piece to write. This wasn't an easy movie to watch. The 2015 documentary Amy chronicles singer/songwriter Amy Winehouse's rise to fame and subsequent struggles adjusting to life in the public eye. That's a story we've seen told, time and time again. The young, idealistic, uniquely talented performer gets discovered and sucked into a cycle of self-destruction, shepherded along and enabled by people more interested in profiting off of her talent than keeping her safe and stable. I think we all have a pretty good idea of what fame can do to a person by now. After all, how many documentaries have we seen about it? How many celebrity deaths have we witnessed as a result of sudden success and addiction? I can't even count the number of people that have found themselves victims of this trend, nor can I count the number of movies people have made about it.

Here's the funny thing though. Amy isn't like other documentaries.

Because Amy wasn't like other people.

I have to compare the movie to her music, because there's no other way to really approach this in my mind.

Amy Winehouse was unusual, at the very least she was unusual for a person with her specific skill set. She had the voice of old American jazz, the type of talent you found in smoky dive joints circa the 1940's. There was something elegant about her sound, there was a quality to her performance that you couldn't recreate. Something you couldn't touch. You could only listen.

At the same time, there was something informal about it. Something down to earth, and honest. She'd rip at the faults in her own thinking, she'd compose beautiful melodies and sophisticated sounds only to compliment the dark and the ironic in her lyrics. You have to listen a little closer, but once you do, you'll find the cracks and the scars that made that woman who she was.

Amy wasn't just blues, she wasn't just jazz, she wasn't just pop. Amy was Amy, and whatever that meant in the particular moment she wrote a song would inform the sound.

Now Amy the movie reflects that in the most sincere of ways.

It isn't a perfect documentary, it isn't the best one I've ever seen, but it never needed to be. If I was watching that movie to see a movie, maybe I'd be a little disappointed by it. However I wasn't watching that movie to see a film. I was watching it to see Amy.

That's an important distinction to remember.

For the director, Asif Kapadia, to step aside and let the story truly be Amy's was admirable. It was also a risk. Clearly (as of the documentary's 2016 Oscar win), it paid off.

It's a beautiful and refreshing thing. To see, for once, a documentary that isn't about the famous people that are reminiscing about the deceased, or the exes who remember the late star fondly. You don't even see the interviewees' faces during Amy, only occasionally in archival footage. Instead, Kapadia opts to play the audio of his interviews with the important people in Amy's life over footage of Amy herself, throughout the stages of her ascent. I'll admit I was, at first, discouraged by this creative choice, but it didn't take long for me to realize that there really was no other way for it to be done.

Here is where I feel Amy the film, and Amy's music, are truly similar. Under the craft, and the expertise, there is something raw and honest. You have to be willing to watch and listen, but once you are, you'll see what the movie is really trying to tell you.

There will never be another Amy Winehouse.

And at no point does someone have to look at the camera and tell you, "THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER WOMAN LIKE AMY."

Because you just sort of get it. At least you should, as long as you do what I said, and listen.

An Amy Winehouse song is something beautiful with something troubled inside, much like the film that shares her name, and much like the person herself.

I wanted this piece to be more of a review of the movie, but I have Amy Winehouse's album Frank playing in my room right now, and this is someone whose music has been a part of my life for a long long time, so naturally this is evolving into a discussion of just how much I appreciate Amy the person.

I know I said that watching this movie was hard, and it was, for obvious reasons. However the take away here isn't that the whole thing is sad and dreary. In fact it is just the opposite. It is seeing Amy laugh and dance and create that is so hard. Seeing her happy is really what's difficult. Because somewhere way in the back of your head, you know how the story ends.

She was fucking hilarious by the way. If I walked away from this movie with any new information about her, it was that she had a wit you don't see everyday. There was one exchange later in the film between Amy and her best friend, Juliette, that left me in stitches. None of it was scripted, she was just that fucking funny. If you're wondering what scene to look out for, it's the scene where Amy gives Juliette the tour of her new home.

That wit extended from her interactions with the people in her life to her music. Next time you're listening to Amy, pull up the lyrics to the songs as you listen. It's the kind of wordplay you'd expect in hip hop or spoken word, and it lends just the kind of insight into her life and thought-process that the documentary does.


Ok Frank just ended, time to put on Back to Black and finish this post.

The tragedy in Amy's story is apparent. It's just obvious. Here is someone with talent abundant enough to change music forever, someone with real problems, and real fears, and just when she was at her lowest low, and trying to get better, we made a cartoon out of her.

The hard-drinking, potty-mouthed diva became a character, and all of a sudden it was ok to make fun of her. It was socially acceptable to blame her for things she had no control over, and to mock a woman who only wanted to give us good music. People like to say that "fame" killed Amy Winehouse. I don't buy that, and if the documentary is any indication, Kapadia doesn't believe that either. Fame can't kill, it's not a disease, it isn't tangible, it has no physical form. People killed Amy Winehouse. The same people who turned around and mourned her when she passed. The same people who will profess years after her death that she was a special talent, and that it really is sad she was on drugs, and unwell.

I don't want to dwell on that event. Death is final, and abrupt. Life is what we should discuss, and remember. Kapadia understands that. With this movie, he devotes a mere two to three minutes to Amy's death, but over two hours to the life that she lived. Some of you will think that the documentary comes to a sudden, unsatisfying end. Well so did Amy Winehouse.

Do I think this film deserved the Oscar that it won? On the one hand, absolutely. It is a sincere celebration of the woman, the myth, the legend that was Amy. It brings her back down to planet earth, after so many people proceeded to make her into something she wasn't. Whether it was a caricature, or a deity, fans and critics alike lost sight of the fact that Amy Winehouse, from start to finish, was a person. She never tried or wanted to be anything else.

On the other hand, I could care less about this movie winning that particular award. To me, the Oscar doesn't give this documentary any more merit than it's already earned on its own. If you watch this movie, watch it for Amy, not for the awards that it won. I promise you, whether you know all there is to know about her, or nothing at all, you will walk away from this film with something. I can't tell you what that something will be, but whatever it is, it'll be special.

In terms of the more technical stuff, I have only this to say: Nothing this movie does in terms of editing or effects will stand out to you. The most noticeable aspect is probably the fact that none of the interviewees are seen, only their voices are heard. Apart from that, the focus is Amy, and rightfully so. I think the title of the documentary really speaks for itself, in the sense that without Amy, there is no film.

I'm sad. I'm really really sad, but I know that I shouldn't be. The sadness is a byproduct of bad things happening, and it won't get me anywhere creatively. Amy inspires me because she took the sadness she felt, she took the bad things that happened, and she used them. She made them into something positive, like good lines, or great songs. That's what I need to take away. I can't ever detach myself from what I do. I can't make a movie without being the person who made it, it just doesn't work that way. There is no way to leave behind whatever baggage comes along with being the person that I am. So I might as well take that baggage, take those bad things, that sadness that I can't shake, and make it into something good.

Amy, the film, is something good. You should watch it when you get the chance.

Thanks for reading.

The Great White Hope

I'm pretty fucking bummed about the Oscars. I'm sure a number of you are as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that race should be a deciding factor in Oscar nominations. If I didn't feel any minority performances of the past year deserved  attention, I wouldn't be so angry. Dejected perhaps, but not angry.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that 2015 saw some excellent performances from actors of varying ethnic and racial backgrounds, and not a single one of those performances is being recognized this year. That's sad. That's tragic.

But it isn't unusual.

In just a few hours we celebrate the 88th Academy Awards. We've been doing this for 88 years now.

Out of 88 Best Leading Actor winners, four have been black men. Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx, and Forest Whitaker.

In 88 years, just one black actress has won the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading role. Halle Berry for her role in Monster's Ball. This was in 2001, and in the 15 years since Halle Berry's win, no black woman has won the award.

Four black men have won the award for Best Supporting Actor, one of those actors of course being Denzel himself.

The Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor is the only Oscar Morgan Freeman has ever received. He won in 2004, at age 67.

Six actresses total have won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. The first was Hattie McDaniel in 1939 for the role of Mammy in Gone With the Wind, a role which only helped to perpetuate the social acceptability of portraying racial stereotypes in film.

Hattie was the first black person to win or be nominated for an Oscar. You won't learn about her in school. I certainly didn't.

Do these numbers sound low to you yet? They should be sounding low.

Like stomach-upsettingly low.

Here's just one more statistic.

Three black directors have been nominated for the best director Academy Award. John Singleton in 1991, Lee Daniels in 2009, and Steve McQueen in 2013. All three of them lost. All three of them were men.

Check out the lists here if you'd like:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees#References

The Oscars is not the only award show with this problem, but it is the most prominent. There has to be a certain level of accountability on the part of the Academy for things such as a disgusting lack of representation for African Americans, considering that the Oscars is (perhaps unfortunately) the public's go-to source on what movies and movie-makers are good/bad.

I've only discussed the statistics for African American actors here, but dig a little deeper and you'll find that the problem is often even more severe for other races. Latino actors, Native American actors, Asian American actors, think about the last time you saw nominations in acting categories for any of those people. Granted now we're getting into a bigger issue. The issue of racial preference in Hollywood. A lot of these actors and actresses you won't see nominated simply because they don't get roles, or rather, they don't get the roles they deserve.

That's a longer piece for a different day.

A lot of you are going to watch the Oscars tonight, and I'm not telling you not to. I'll be watching too. This year, however, I only ask that you do more than just watch. I ask that you analyze. I ask that you talk with the people around you about what you see, and what you don't see. I ask that you identify your concerns, and that you voice them. Be loud about it. Be obvious with your sadness or your rage, or your disappointment, should you feel those things. Give them no choice but to listen, whoever "them" may be to you, or to me.

Thanks for reading. Good tidings to all.

Big Mac with Fries

Before we begin, here's some updates on the future of this blog and how things might change going forward.

I love doing this, I sincerely do, so much so that I'd probably still do it even if nobody read these things but y'all do and I sincerely appreciate that. You guys are the real MVPs, and I am grateful everyday for your interest in what I write.

Moving forward, I want to spice things up a bit. I adore writing, but I love making movies even more, and I feel like with the film equipment I have at my disposal here at school, I should be making more of an effort to combine my desire to discuss film with my passion for producing video content. So I want to start vlogging. Now this doesn't mean my written blog will fall by the wayside. The wonderful thing about this blog I find is that no matter what day it is, and no matter where I am (generally) I can churn out a written piece. No lighting or post-production required. So this blog will stay up and running, I just might be posting a little less frequently than usual.

So yeah, vlogs are coming, be on the lookout for those. In addition, I have a lot of ideas for things like podcasts, short films, stories, etc., that ,may or may not come of this as well, so when those things become reality, I'll let you all know.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

MACBETH!


I'm a fan of William Shakespeare. I think we have him to thank for a lot of what we know about modern storytelling. I enjoy studying his work, I enjoy putting on his plays, I enjoy watching his stuff be performed. In fact I prefer watching Shakespeare to reading it, as I'm sure many do.

There's a wit to every line, a subtlety that I'm sad to say I don't think I'll ever really master. The guy knew what he was doing.

He knew how to tell a story, and how to do it well.

Adaptations of his work are all over the place. From films to novels to plays to songs, people are constantly reshaping his stuff, at times trying to make sense of it in a modern context, using his themes and characters against the backdrop of their own stories, or maybe even just copying and pasting his plays into cool and weird "what if" scenarios. There are really no limits on what one can try with Shakespeare. Unfortunately, not every adaptation works. In fact, a lot of them fail.

Here's what I feel the real difficulty is. When it comes to adapting Shakespeare, you have every prior attempt at an adaptation working against you. The play itself has been done before, a bunch of times, over hundreds of years. Not only that, but most cool and original ideas/approaches to adapting the work have also already been tried. The challenge isn't doing it, the challenge is doing it different. As I stated briefly in my Speed Racer review, when an adaptation doesn't feel different from the source material or other previous adaptations, it feels unnecessary. It feels as though you had nothing to add. That's a problem.

Late last year, a Macbeth film adaption hit select theaters, and as is customary of most amazing independent movies, was never talked about again. I had the opportunity to watch it last night so I did. Here's how I feel about it.


Justin Kurzel's 2015 Macbeth is the most faithful film adaptation of the Scottish play I've seen in my lifetime. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the Orson Welles version, but I've looked into it. It looks...fine, but I highly doubt it'll exemplify the points I am about to make. I have also seen the Roman Polanski version (not a fan) and the Patrick Stewart production (loved it, but Kurzel's is better in my opinion).

Please allow me to explain myself.

This movie changes some shit around, I'm not disputing that. The important distinction to keep in mind here is that a faithful adaptation of something need not be a carbon copy of it. The movie Sin City is faithful to it's source material, and it just so happens to be EXACTLY the same as the comics on which it is based. To me, however, Sin City's visual similarities to the comics aren't what make it faithful. I feel, personally, that faithful and identical are two different things.

I read part of a New York Times review of Macbeth that made a great point about why so many Macbeth productions fail and I really dug it so I'm gonna use it here to defend my points. Manhola Dargis argues in her review that the role of Macbeth is such a difficult one to portray realistically, because the character goes from noble hero to cowardly tyrant in such a short amount of time. She compliments Fassbender's portrayal, claiming that his transformation in the film works so well because at the beginning of the film Macbeth is already broken. He is already, in more ways than one, insane. All he needs is a little push for that madness to rear its ugly face.

This brings me to the first key difference between the play and the film, and the one I think might be what people either didn't like or misunderstood.

(By the way this isn't a spoiler in my eyes, but if you really want to know NOTHING about this movie going in, just skip the next paragraph. I'm about to discuss something that occurs in the literal first moments of the movie, and overall the movie still largely follows the Macbeth story you probably know very well by now, so I promise this isn't a big deal. Still though, just a warning).

In Kurzel's adaptation, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have lost a child, and the film opens with the funeral. This is a major departure from the play, in which the witches meet and discuss Macbeth's fate on the battlefield as opposed to at the funeral of his kid. Now here's why I think that this choice is ok. For starters, making this change in no way affects the play as it is written. If you don't like that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have a child in this one interpretation of the story, keep in mind that Shakespeare's original work is still intact, and still contains no mention of the child, so nothing has actually been changed, nor does the creative team behind Kurzel's version owe you a 100% accurate telling of the Macbeth tale. The second reason why I'm ok with this change is I feel it helps nudge the two lead characters in a direction more appropriate to the story. Mac and Lady Mac don't necessarily feel sinister, or overly-ambitious at any point in the movie, they just feel hollow. Not in a bad way, either. They feel like empty people, depressed and dissatisfied in every sense of the word, searching for some reason to go on. When Macbeth hears from the witches that he will be king, he takes it as the first sign of good fortune in a long series of tragedies, and he and his wife cling to the hope that it inspires. This sets the story's signature self-fulfilling prophecy into motion in spectacular fashion.

This is one of the best portrayals of Lady Macbeth I've seen. Not only is Marion Cotillard in top form, but the character and her strife are depicted with such grace and care.



Again I'm about to discuss something spoiler-y here, but if you know how the story of Macbeth goes, this isn't actually a spoiler.

Lady Macbeth's death I'm sure is another departure from the play that people may have taken issue with. Where in the play it is very clearly stated that Lady Macbeth has committed suicide, and Macbeth is informed of this just before his iconic soliloquy, in the film the cause of Lady Macbeth's death is left very ambiguous. She walks about outside for a while, hallucinating an entire exchange with her dead child during which she admits her guilt and pleads with her child to go to sleep. After that, Macbeth is informed that she has died, and he holds her dead body, walking around his chambers with it, lamenting her passing.

I like this change.

The handling of that particular beat ties into the larger sense of mysticism surrounding the movie. For lack of a better term, the whole story just feels haunted. It feels spiritual, but not in a satisfying, meditative way. Lady Macbeth's death, the fiery red atmosphere of the climactic battle with Macduff, the battle scene earlier in the movie during which Macbeth first meets the witches, the murder of King Duncan, it all feels so fucking eerie, at times you can't even tell what's real and what isn't. It feels cursed, much like the play does.

The madness of it all is as beautiful to behold as it is scary to consider. You're not sure what exactly killed Lady Macbeth, and for that reason, you're kind of afraid of the whole situation.

One thing about this movie that struck me as being significant thematically was the depiction of children. There are three very interesting child characters seen throughout the film. Fleance, who is Banquo's son, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's unnamed child, who haunts them from beyond the grave (not literally), and the child witch. Well I haven't actually worked out if she's a witch, but I'd like to believe she is.

Yes the three witches appear in the movie, but with them is a fourth character. A child. It is suggested visually that she is the daughter of one of the witches but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

The way I see it, Fleance represents the survival of Banquo. The continuation of his bloodline, and perhaps the beginning of a dynasty as it is suggested that Fleance will become king one day. At the same time, the child of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth represents their end. That child is all they have, and when the child dies, their bloodline is similarly ended. The fascinating thing about that is the funeral of their child is how the film starts, signifying that they were doomed from the literal beginning of the story (the end of their child's life is the end of their bloodline and yet also the start of the story). Is this what drives them to kill for the throne? Could be.

What is the significance of the child witch? I can't really say. I do know, however, that it is implied heavily that this child has some kind of power or authority over the three adult witches. When Banquo and Fleance are attacked, and Fleance flees, the child witch actually saves him, seemingly directly affecting the fulfillment of the prophecy by interfering and ensuring Fleance lives. Maybe she's what you would call "Hecate", the mythological goddess of the witches. I can't be sure.

MOVING ON



How does this movie handle guilt? The crushing regret that for centuries has remained a central motif of the tragedy of Macbeth. If we don't feel the guilt of these leads, if we don't believe that they are slowly descending into madness and grief, then the whole thing falls apart.

This is where that faithfulness thing comes back into play.

This is one of the few depictions of these characters that I feel captures their guilt the way Shakespeare intended. Now let me clarify, I don't know what was going on in Shakespeare's head when he was writing this play. I can't tell you exactly what he hoped this story would do for people, or what he intended for people to feel. I can only tell you what I think I have learned over the course of multiple readings of the play itself. I can only tell you how I felt while reading it.

Murder happens all the time in literature and movies. ALL THE TIME.  People stab other people, shoot other people, drown other people, burn other people. This is just a fact of reading or watching any form of media. So to read a story where the act of stabbing another human being affected a character so much was jarring.

It got me thinking.

Specifically it got me thinking about the dagger and it's significance.

Macbeth is a general, he knows war well. He is no stranger to slitting throats or stabbing men. So why, when asked to kill Duncan with the dagger in his sleep, does Macbeth fret? The weapon here is significant. Poison would be one thing, or an arrow and bow, but no. Macbeth is asked to take a dagger to this sleeping person, and told he by his wife that his reluctance to do so makes him weak. It makes him less than a man. There is something intimate and disturbing about the dagger as a mode of killing, and the depiction of that instrument in the film is unsettling to say the least. It feels like a character. I appreciated that immensely. To me it demonstrated not just an understanding of the source material on the part of the writers and directors, but also a willingness to interpret it.

JUST TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON SOME TECHNICAL AND VISUAL STUFF

The movie puts forward what I would classify as a parable. A legend. Not entirely realistic, not entirely historically accurate but artful and insightful in a beautiful way. The visual storytelling is key here.

The picture quality is insane. Every detail of every frame is clear and crisp. The setting provides for ample sweeping establishing shots and a haunting (albeit lovely) atmosphere. Hats off to Adam Arkapaw for his stunning cinematography (he also did some work on True Detective, which I love).

The costume design is nothing short of brilliant.

There are films out there that are so subtle with the movement of the camera, and so careful with the framing of scenes, that an audience member can actually forget they're watching a movie. The Hateful Eight, Gone Girl, Taxi Driver, Jaws, these are just a few of my personal favorite examples. Then there are movies that embrace the medium through which they are being broadcast. Movies like Drive and Only God Forgives, or Grand Budapest Hotel, these are films that look and FEEL like movies. The camera moves in ways only a camera could, and captures visuals that, while stunning, only a camera could capture.

Macbeth embraces its medium. It is clear with every frame that you are watching a film, and for this particular story, I'm very ok with that.

Remember, adaptation necessitates change.

To film a stage play is one thing. But to take that play and transform it into something else (hence the use of the word adapt) is where the real craft comes in. This was Kurzel's opportunity to show us all HIS Macbeth, and I'm thrilled that he took every opportunity he could have to be daring and different. And, somewhat ironically, in interpreting the play's themes and events as opposed to just transferring them to the screen, Kurzel managed to be more faithful to the original work than any filmmaker before him.

If you walked into Macbeth ready to watch the play again, you walked into it wrong. This is the MOVIE, and your heart and mind should be open to the changes that go along with that kind of translation.

Maybe you like your Macbeth exactly the way it is, and seeing it fucked with makes you uneasy. Just try and understand that this movie, like the play, is a lot less literal than it appears to be at first glance. It didn't sink in for me until the film's final frame, the fact that nobody would sit me down and tell me exactly how to feel about it all. I would have to make a decision about what was being said, and that decision would be informed by my own experiences with power and regret.

Thanks for reading, and see this movie if you haven't already.