Menu
By Thomas John Moore Released on Netflix on March 8, After Life is like nothing Ricky Gervais has worked on before. Taking a more serious approach than the likes of The Office, there is more of a focus in this series on dark humour. In this exploration of love, loss and self-discovery, Gervais has come out with one of the most thoughtful, introspective pieces of writing for the television screen that I have had the honour to experience. After Life follows the story of Tony, a lonely, angry widower who has given up on life. Depressed and suicidal, Tony comes to the conclusion that he can now live out the rest of his days without fear, doing whatever he wants whenever he wants, safe in the knowledge that he always has suicide to fall back on if things go wrong. To that end, Tony continues to work at the local newspaper, a dull, seemingly pointless job with co-workers toward whom he is constantly unapologetically rude. As the people in his life try their best to comfort him and make him happier, Tony’s newfound outlook leads him to mix with people he otherwise would not, including drug addicts and sex workers. As Tony forges new relationships, it becomes apparent that perhaps his character is not quite as clear-cut as he thinks. The relationship between Tony and his dog is a highlight of the series. Throughout Tony’s internal struggles, his dog represents all the love that he has locked away deep within his heart since the death of his wife. Every time he contemplates suicide, the dog is there to stop him from being able to go through with it, as he knows deep down that he still has love to give, and that there remain elements to life that are beautiful, but that he is currently blind to. At the end of the day, After Life is a story about a man’s love for his wife, and the grief that he has to suffer through in the wake of her death. It also focuses on the undying support that those close to Tony show him, even as he blatantly disrespects them. The true message of the series is that there is always hope. Even in the darkest of times when everything seems pointless and all Tony feels is pain, he finds it in his heart to stay alive so that someone will be around to feed the dog. He still has hope for the world, even as he is hurt and directionless.
Ultimately, After Life is a story that causes the viewer to review their way of looking at life. Personally, I feel completely different having watched this series. I have a newfound appreciation for the world and the many different ways we as humans can positively affect the earth and the lives of those on it. A sometimes heart-wrenching, somewhat heart-warming, and often comedic tale of love and redemption, After Life is the most personally impactful television series I have experienced in a long time. I implore you to watch it.
0 Comments
By Cian Griffin Since its inception in 2008, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has become a juggernaut in modern day multiplexes. Starting with Iron Man, the Marvel heroes have gone on to become household names that have gathered millions of fans across the world, raking in over sixteen billion dollars at the worldwide box office. With this great global fanbase comes a great responsibility to represent these multitudes of fans on screen and promote diversity in the modern-day blockbuster. For the most part, Marvel has delivered on this front. While slow at first, the Marvel heroes have become gradually more diverse, branching out of white male heroes and embracing different types of heroes. For example, in 2018, Black Panther became a global sensation and had huge cultural relevance, featuring a predominantly African and African American cast. The same year, Ant-Man and the Wasp was the first Marvel film to feature a female character in the titular role. This new wave of diversity looks to continue with Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel (2019) becoming the first female hero to lead her own solo film. Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow character will also lead her own film and an all-female Avengers film is also in development. A new film centring around Shang-Chi will become the first superhero film to feature an Asian lead character and a potential Nova movie featuring Sam Alexander would be the first superhero film to have a Latinx character in its central role. The future of the MCU looks bright, not only representing both male and female heroes but ethnically and culturally diverse heroes too. This is an extremely positive moment in modern day movie making, proving that lead characters can be more than just white men. However as a young, gay Marvel fanboy, I cannot help but wonder where the LGBTQ+ representation is in the MCU. Across 10 years and 21 feature films, we have been introduced to countless heroes and supporting characters, but there is a clear lack of LGBTQ+ representation. Of the estimated 67 characters in 2018’s Avengers: Infinity War, not even one was openly queer. In fact, we have only been introduced to one openly queer character in the form of Tessa Thompson’s scene stealing and kick-ass Valkyrie in 2017’s Thor: Ragnarok (2017). Even at that, Valkyrie never openly addresses her sexuality in the film. In an earlier cut of the film, one scene did hint towards her sexuality. The scene in question featured another woman leaving Valkyrie’s bedroom and heavily implied that the two had slept together. The scene was ultimately left on the cutting room floor with those involved citing “timing issues”. However, following the film’s release, Tessa Thompson (an openly bisexual actress) took to Twitter to assure fans that Valkyrie was indeed bisexual. Apart from Valkyrie, an early cut of Black Panther featured a scene referencing the relationship between two members of T’Challa’s elite bodyguard squadron, the Dora Milaje. However when the film was released in cinemas, the scene was nowhere to be found and was not even featured in the deleted scenes accompanying the film’s home release. Twice now, scenes featuring LGBTQ+ characters have been cut from Marvel films which raises the question: were these cuts purely creative or is there more to it? It is possible that Kevin Feige and the rest of the creative team at Marvel are trying not to alienate part of their audiences. Even in 2019, some people are still not accepting of gay characters in films. For example, look at another Disney project, 2017’s live-action Beauty and the Beast for a point of reference. As soon as director Bill Condon referenced LeFou’s sexuality and a scene featured him dancing with another man (which lasts all of 4 seconds), the film was banned in several cinemas across the US, banned completely in Malaysia and Kuwait, and a movement was launched to have it banned in Russia. Perhaps Marvel does not want a repeat of this, especially given that their films perform amazingly well in both the Russian and Malaysian markets. On the other hand, maybe these cuts are in actuality completely creative decisions with Marvel not finding the right time or place to introduce LGBTQ+ characters and do them justice. Head of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, has announced that the upcoming films in Phase 4 of the MCU will feature openly queer characters, so perhaps the future of the MCU will be a little more diverse in terms of representation. This now raises the question, as fans speculate what the future of the MCU hold who some of these characters might be. Here are a few of my suggestions which I believe would be perfect for the MCU: Wiccan: Billy Kaplan is the all-powerful, magical son of Scarlet Witch and one of the founding members of the Young Avengers, along with his boyfriend Hulkling (more on him later), who later goes on to replace Doctor Strange as the Sorcerer Supreme. With Elizabeth Olsen’s Scarlet Witch being a fan favourite in the MCU and receiving her own TV show on Disney Plus, it’s only a matter of time before we get introduced to her children. Wiccan would be an interesting addition to the MCU as not only does his powers expand the mystical side of the Marvel universe, but they also make for an exciting visual spectacle. Beyond this, Wiccan’s struggles with his own personal demons would make for a fascinating and layered character. In the hands of a young star like Timothee Chalamet or Nick Robinson, Wiccan could become a staple of the MCU akin to Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. Hulkling: You can’t have Wiccan without his other half, Teddy Altman a.k.a. Hulkling. This Kree/Skrull hybrid is the son of the original Captain Marvel and takes inspiration from Bruce Banner’s Hulk. With shapeshifting abilities and superhuman strength, Hulkling could be a juggernaut in the MCU, joining the ranks of Hulk and Groot as the strongest heroes. With the Kree-Skrull War and (spoiler alert) his mother Mar-Vell being featured in Captain Marvel, now would be the perfect time to introduce the world to Teddy, especially if Mark Ruffalo’s time with Marvel ends with Avengers: Endgame, leaving a Hulk-shaped hole in the MCU. America Chavez: As a member of both the Young Avengers and the all-female Avengers team, the A-Force, America Chavez (Miss America) has become a staple of modern comics. With her ability to travel through dimensions, super strength, and sassy attitude, America could become a fan favourite representing both the Latinx and LGBTQ+ communities. With Doctor Strange and Ant-Man already introducing us to the idea of different dimensions in their respective solo films, America could lead the Young Avengers on a dimension hopping adventure that would open the MCU to new worlds. With both Gina Rodriguez and Stephanie Beatriz expressing interest in playing this heroine and Young Avengers and A-Force films both apparently in the works at Marvel, it is only a matter of time before Miss America becomes a household name. Moondragon: With the current Guardians of the Galaxy roster being shaken up after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, it might be time to add some new blood to the line up and there is no better option than the telekinetic and telepathic Heather Douglas, more commonly known as Moondragon. This bald badass has been a member of the Avengers, the Defenders and the Guardians of the Galaxy and is one of the most powerful heroes in Marvel comics. While her complicated and overly complex backstory involving resurrections and reincarnations might need to be updated and simplified, Moondragon could be an exciting addition to the cosmic side of the MCU. Drax himself, Dave Bautista, has already expressed interest in Moondragon joining the MCU. Angela: Last but not least is the long-lost sister of Thor and Queen of Hel, Angela. Another former member of the Guardians of the Galaxy in the comics, Angela has gone toe to toe with monsters and demons alike across the entire Marvel universe. A current Marvel series sees Angela as a member of the Asgardians of the Galaxy and a movie adapting this concept featuring Angela, Valkyrie, Lady Sif, Korg and Miek could be a smash hit for Marvel, especially if put in the hands of Thor: Ragnarok helmer, Taika Watiti. At the end of the day, whether it be a creative decision or out of fear or alienating audiences, Marvel still needs to do better by their queer fans and add some much needed representation to their roster. The MCU is doing a far better job of representing LGBTQ+ characters on the small screen with Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, Karolina Dean and Nico Minoru in Runaways and Shades in Luke Cage. Phase 4 of the MCU is still shrouded with mystery so it’s likely that post Avengers: Endgame, we could see a Young Avengers film or at least some of the characters mentioned above being introduced. According to recent reports, the upcoming movie centred around the Eternals is looking for an openly gay actor to fill the main role and the movie could feature the first openly gay hero so progress is on the horizon and I personally cannot wait to have a hero who can represent me and my experiences appear on the big screen.
By Katie Goulding On Wednesday the 27th of February 2019, I travelled to Dublin with some classmates to attend the Dublin International Film Festival screening of the critically-acclaimed independent film Eighth Grade, which is written and directed by Bo Burnham. We also got the opportunity to experience a Q&A session with Bo afterwards, which was something that I was extremely looking forward to. Believe me when I say both Bo and his film did not disappoint. It has been a few weeks since the event, and I am still thinking about the film. It has given me a lot of inspiration as an aspiring filmmaker, but also as a film lover. It has given me hope that there are more stories like those told in Eighth Grade to come in film. Bo Burnham’s film Eighth Grade is the story of a girl named Kayla (played by the remarkable Elsie Fisher), an aspiring Youtuber who is transitioning from middle school to high school. The film tackles subjects surrounding youth today in a way that is painfully cringeworthy to watch, while also being immensely accurate, engaging, and relatable. Burnham’s effortless use of comedy and humour shine through the entire film, and the whole audience bursting into laughter for five minutes at a time. The entirety of the movie felt very raw and honest, as if Bo himself had dived into the mind of every thirteen-year-old girl and displayed their exact thoughts and feelings onto the screen. His ability to understand young people in today’s society was incredible and very refreshing to see. It was delightful that young people were recognised for having problems, anxieties and insecurities of their own. This film did not seem patronising in any way, unlike many teen-movies/coming of age stories we see in film today. I recall in an episode of “Teens React” on the Fine Bros “React” YouTube channel, where they had eighth graders react to the film, Burnham said that he didn’t want his film to look like it was made for eighth graders, because “often when it is made for eighth graders it like, to me, feels pandery or aspirational and I didn’t want to do that, I just wanted to capture what they were.” He goes on to discuss his issue with coming of age films, which was something that really stuck with me from this interview. He says, “that’s my problem with stuff about teens; it’s clearly made for teens which is not the same as making something truthful.” As I said, this is something that stuck with me and something that I was thinking about a lot while watching the film. It did not feel once as if he was trying to be patronising or talk down to young people, and he did not shy away from the truth: that young people are awkward and uncomfortable with themselves, and they are continuing to figure out what they want, what they like, and who they are. Burnham’s brilliance was evident throughout the film, even the smallest moments hit the nail on the head. In one scene Kayla goes to a pool party and has a panic attack in the bathroom, before going outside and joining everyone else in the water. What I liked, firstly, about this sequence is the fact that Burnham acknowledged that young people have anxiety and panic attacks, without playing it off as if they are “shy” or “nervous” like a lot of films do. He was honest with us and put it right in front of us, basically announcing to everyone: Teenagers get anxiety and it is okay, and normal. This was very refreshing to see on screen.
As the scene continues we see Kayla getting into the pool, where she is joined by a character called Gabe. He asks her if she wants to see him do a handstand in the pool and Kayla says yes. After a few failed attempts Gabe claims that there are too many people in the pool and the water is too rough. It is little details like these that made me feel as if Bo Burnham understood young people. That moment in the scene had the entire cinema cracking up with laughter and I think it is not only because of the comedic timing of the lines, but also because it was relatable. Everyone has tried to do something, failed, and then blamed it on something else. There are so many other moments like these in the film that make it so loveable and charismatic. The cinematography was also terrific in Eighth Grade. Something that I always pick up on in films is when text messages are superimposed onto a phone-screen. It is a major pet-peeve of mine, as it is so unrealistic and obvious that the character is not even typing anything or actually scrolling through their phone. In the Q&A session with Bo after the film, a member of the audience commented on this aspect of the cinematography, and how it differs in this film. We can see in Eighth Grade that Kayla is actually typing her own text messages and scrolling through Twitter and liking real Instagram pictures. The audience member asked Bo if this was something he considered a minor element of the filmmaking process or whether it was something he did intentionally. Bo laughed and said that it was completely intentional as there is nothing that irritates him more in films than superimposed text messages. All I wanted to do in that moment was jump in the air. It was something so small to me, but it really reinforced my admiration for Burnham and his filmmaking style. Overall, Eighth Grade was incredible, massively refreshing and utterly charming. Elsie Fisher’s performance was brilliant and she deserves more credit than she is getting for carrying the whole film on her shoulders. Bo Burnham’s ability to ace the smallest elements of filmmaking, as well as carefully executing the realities of youth in both his writing and directing made this film immensely enjoyable. If you have not seen Eighth Grade yet, I would recommend adding it to your list. 10/10 By Ronan Watters Last night, I decided to sit down and watch a film that I hadn’t seen in quite some time. That film was American Beauty (1999). It was my third time viewing it, but it was my first time to watching it since the allegations against Kevin Spacey were made back in October 2017. While I was able to get through the film and enjoy it as much as the previous times I had seen it, there was a creeping thought in the back of my head that wouldn’t stop persisting throughout the first half an hour of the film: “Kevin Spacey is in this.” Since he was first accused of sexual misconduct, more than 30 people have made allegations, including attempted rape, against Spacey. Apart from one incredibly bizarre video he uploaded in late 2018, where he seemed to defend himself against the allegations by using his Frank Underwood character from House of Cards, we haven’t heard much from him since actor Anthony Rapp first blew the whistle on his depraved behaviour. This led me to ask myself a question after I finished watching American Beauty: Is it possible to watch an entertainers work without the controversies of their personal lives influencing our opinions of the work they are in? The actions of Spacey and others like him should not be dismissed. They rightfully deserve the hate being thrown at them, as some people in the entertainment industry have gotten away with their sick behaviour for decades. Yet I found myself confused, because I was still able to watch American Beauty. While I thought about the allegations against Spacey for about half an hour into the film, I was still captivated by it. Bar one half of the storyline, which sees Spacey’s Lester Burnham sexually fantasise about his daughter’s underage friend Angela (which makes the real life allegations all the more uncomfortable), I was able to watch in awe of the countless other great performances in the film, from Annette Benning and Thora Birch as Burnham’s long suffering wife and daughter to Wes Bentley and Chris Cooper as troubled father and son. The cinematography, direction, and writing are to be admired as well. Conrad Hall shoots the film beautifully under the tight direction of Sam Mendes. The film went on to win five Academy Awards in 2000 and is still thought of as one of the best American movies ever made. But people I have spoken to have told me that they can’t watch it solely due to the presence of Spacey. I am not speaking for anyone bar myself, but I am torn about whether we should dismiss the work of controversial entertainers, as they are not the only people who have worked on their respective projects. Anyone with a small interest in films will know that hundreds upon hundreds of people can work on a film at a time, especially on big budget films. Should their work be all for nothing because of the actions of one of the stars? Some people use the argument that those who work on the films “don’t care” about all that because they still get paid. But that’s where they are wrong. Many people who work on these films do it because they love it. They want to get their film that they have tirelessly laboured over out there for people to see, and I’m sure there is nothing more frustrating than when their work is overshadowed by the actions of one individual. One of my friends told me that he didn’t know that Harvey Weinstein was a producer on Pulp Fiction, though his name is proudly displayed in the opening credits. His enjoyment of the film is ruined because the thought of Weinstein being involved in any way now sends shivers down his spine. That leads to another question: the severity of what they are being accused of. Weinstein has received the most attention as he was the first big name to be exposed by the media for his abusive behaviour. The “Weinstein Effect” has seen other powerful men be ousted as abusers. One man accused of allegations is Dustin Hoffman. Seven women have accused Hoffman of misconduct, while Weinstein has been accused by over 80 women. I am not dismissing what Hoffman allegedly did, but this example shows who the media targets more: We are still talking about people like Weinstein and Spacey, yet Hoffman has remained largely quiet, just as the media have remained quiet about him.
My thinking about Kevin Spacey also led me to think of others in Hollywood who have seen their behaviour exposed to the limelight. I began thinking about Roman Polanski, a man who was convicted in 1977 of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, a man who fled to France when he learned the judge was going to lock him up, a man who won the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for his work on The Pianist (2002) and was visibly applauded by his peers in Hollywood. Since the rise of the Me Too movement, behaviour like this is not tolerated anymore, and rightfully so. But I myself am still able to watch Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974) without letting Polanski’s real life crime distract me from his films. At first, I thought I was being too cold and ignorant, but my personal feeling is that we shouldn’t let the hard work of so many people be thrown to the waste due to the actions of one single individual. It reminds me of the controversy surrounding Liam Neeson. Neeson’s new film Cold Pursuit (2019) was to have a red carpet event for the premiere, but was swiftly cancelled in the wake of accusations of racism against Neeson. I saw the film myself last week and enjoyed it thoroughly, and was able to immerse myself into the film without letting the real life controversy surrounding Neeson ruin my enjoyment of the film. Of course, Neeson is dealing with a whole different type of accusation compared to men like Spacey, Weinstein and Polanski. The controversy surrounding Neeson warrants an article of its own. As I have stated, this is only my opinion on the matter. Many people will disagree with me and that is fine. I am not defending these men, but I can immerse myself into a film without thinking of the actions of one individual. I can appreciate a film for what it is and I can respect the hard work of others without letting it be spoiled by the depraved, sick and selfish actions of some. The presence of entertainers embroiled in controversy can be distracting for a while, but I still find myself enjoying their work. By Lorna Breen Over the past few years, our cinemas have been dominated by superheroes. Whether it is an epic Avengers movie, a spin-off for a superhero you had never heard of before, or a DC film that gets ripped apart by critics, there seems to always be a superhero flick at the box office every few months. Personally, I have grown a little tired of these films. While I always look forward to seeing the big-name heroes team up for an epic like Avengers: Infinity War (2018), I cannot sustain my excitement for all the spin-off films as there are simply too many of them. When I heard that there was going to be another major Spider-Man film, this time an animated one, I really could not believe it. This character has had his origin story told twice, with 5 movies released before he officially joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Tom Holland’s take on the character had his own film, Spider-Man: Homecoming released in 2017 and has a sequel on the way. At this point, most people have grown tired of watching Spider-man’s beginnings and instead want to move on to more exciting and fresh stories. However, after seeing this film, I regret having my doubts. This film takes us into the “Spider-Verse,” where there are multiple universes. In these alternative universes, there are different versions of Spider-Man. It focuses on one universe where Brooklyn teenager Miles Morales, voiced by Shameik Moore, has his world turned upside down when he takes on the role of Spider-Man and learns about these different dimensions. The movie is self-aware, and repeatedly has the different versions of the hero introduce themselves, mentioning that they were bitten by a radioactive spider at the beginning of each of their quick origin stories. It is as if they are poking fun at the amount of times we as an audience have seen Peter Parker’s origin story played out in front of us. The lovable main character Miles struggles with his new powers and does not feel ready to take on the role as Spider-Man. His unwilling mentor from another dimension, Peter B. Parker helps him adjust to his new life. It was so intriguing to see Peter Parker, not as a high schooler but instead as middle-aged, slightly overweight and pairing sweatpants with his iconic costume. While the “reluctant mentor” is something we see a lot in film, it works perfectly here as Miles tries to follow his advice and understand that “with great power comes great responsibility." Then we have characters like Spider-Man Noir, a version of Peter Parker from the 1930s, Spider-Hamm who used to be a spider but was bitten by a radioactive pig and Peni, a girl from an anime-like universe who controls a powerful suit with a radioactive spider telepathically. In addition to these heroes, we see a version of Gwen Stacy take on the role of Spider-Woman. While this might seem like an overload of Spider-Men, these characters work perfectly together, each bringing something unique to the table and plenty of laughs. I personally found the humour in this film to be much better than the typical humour found in a Marvel film. The snarky one-liners in a typical Marvel film tend to fall flat at times and are often misplaced, deflating a lot of serious moments. However, in this case, I have never experienced an audience so amused by a Marvel film before. The jokes land perfectly one after the other, yet they know when to cut the humour too.
Not only is the humour good, but so is the action. Everyone who leaves the cinema after seeing this film says the same thing and it really is true: it is a comic book brought to life. It is full of bright colours, mimicking the street art that Miles spray paints throughout the movie. A scene which I think best showcases the stunning animation is the “Leap of Faith” scene. Miles has finally built up the courage to truly become a hero and is about to take a leap of faith, something his mentor told him about. This scene is gorgeous as we watch the protagonist run along the rooftops of New York at night and swing over the traffic below him as he realises who he is – Spider-Man. This scene solidified this movie as my favourite film of the year as it is such a breath of fresh air. It leaves you craving more films like this: films that are not afraid to take their own leaps of faith and try something different. It leaves you with the song “Sunflower” stuck in your head, too. Rating: 9/10 By Ilsa Flynn I recently went to see the film Another Day of Life, directed by Raúl de la Fuente and Damian Nenow. Going into the film I was honestly unsure of what to expect. I knew very little regarding the plot or those involved with the film. When I left the cinema, however, I was spellbound. The gravity of the events that occured and the way in which it was composed was unlike anything I had seen before.
The film is based on Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuściński’s novel of the same name. As a foreign correspondent for the Polish press agency, Kapuściński traveled the world and made people aware of the atrocities that were ongoing in places far from their own. Wherever he went he felt a great commitment to those who surrounded him to help in some fashion. This can be seen obviously in his writing, as I was compelled to research his work after seeing the film. In Another Day of Life, he is in Angola during their civil war. The film follows him as he goes from Luanda, the capital, and around the country. He discovers death and destruction comparable to a hellscape. The animation of the film captures his narrative style beautifully. The blatant surrealism that we have become accustomed, along with animation, mirrors the feelings he conveyed through his writing. Despite watching a completely fabricated world, each moment of the film felt completely real to me. Each frame was so delicately created and entranced me completely. His experiences and concerns were there on the screen in front of me and I did not doubt him for a second. The live action interviews with those who were involved in his expedition and photographs of his travels that were included also rocked me to my core, the transition from the imaginary to the reality felt so seamless, so, so brilliant. A huge part of the film was how it was based on a true story, and it was a film rather than a documentary. Kapuściński has been accused of adding colour or even lying in his writing and has sadly lost his credibility to many of those in his native country. However, many believe he was just pushing the boundaries of journalism, and that while everything he wrote may not have been 100% factual but his intent was to keep everyone who he encountered and his own beliefs at the forefront of his writing. This is why I believe this film is even more genius. The film does not try to tell his story as if it played out action for action, they animate it. The world comes apart and rearranges itself in front of your eyes. It is a film, a window to the imagination. The colour he adds to the story conveys how he felt. This was his truth. The story is based on the individual experience of Kapuściński himself. I love how blatant they make this. It is a slap in the face for traditional film culture where filmmakers feel it is necessary to mimic reality as much as possible, the accent training and the prosthetics and so on, and it is refreshing to find a film that fully accepts what it is. By Robert O'Sullivan In 2015, James Franco appeared in nine films--all of which (apart from one) failed both critically and financially. So, naturally, when in late 2015 I heard Franco was undertaking the drastic responsibility of not only directing an adaptation of The Disaster Artist, a memoir about the hilariously awful 2003 cult hit The Room, but also starring as Tommy Wiseau, the writer, director, producer, star and possible vampire behind the infamous trainwreck, I was very sceptical. Nonetheless, when the film hit theatre screens in December 2017, me and a few of my close friends, all of us superfans of The Room, made the trip up to The Lighthouse in Dublin and hoped for the best while preparing for the worst. Fortunately, to our delight, The Disaster Artist was a delight of a film, filled with laughs and references to the cult hit, while also humanising the story and making it a touching tale of friendship. The film, of course, centres around Tommy (James Franco), but also around his co-lead in the 2003 film, Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), who co-wrote the memoir. The film begins in an acting class in the late 90s, where it is clear that Greg lacks the necessary confidence to lose himself in a role, often being too aware of his own surroundings. It is at this point that the mysterious Tommy volunteers to do a scene, and in contrast to Greg, Tommy lacks any sense of self-awareness, throwing himself into the deep-end and committing fully to an over the top, primal scream-fuelled acting style. It is from this point that their friendship blossoms, as Greg realises he can use Tommy as a medium for gaining more confidence on stage. The duo embarks on a move to Los Angeles to try make it big, but while Greg finds an agent and goes on many auditions – although with generally poor results, Tommy finds it impossible to find an agency or any acting coaches willing to take him on. Frustrated, Tommy decides that he will simply make his own movie and stun the world with his filmmaking that they all rejected. And boy, did he do just that. Where The Disaster Artist thrives is in its portrayal of Tommy. While it would have been easy to make him out to be a crazy manchild with too much money and have the audience just laugh at his sorry attempts at film-making, the screenwriters, who went on to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, chose to look at him from a different angle as just a man with a passion who everyone rejected. The film suggests that while it’s easy to laugh at a clown, it is also important to look at why they are in the makeup. When he decides to make a film of his own, the audience is not laughing at his misguided confidence, but rather rooting for him and supporting him after seeing him get hit down again and again, time after time. Franco understands this complex form of Tommy, and portrays with him a childlike innocence and naivete, while also getting the iconic voice just right, a feat which cannot be overlooked. It is easy to see why Franco was attracted to the project. Like Tommy, he tends to be a little bit offbeat. Both of them let their ambition drive them instead of reason. While passion is always coursing through the veins of each and every project they do, that passion does not always translate to quality on screen. And like Tommy, Franco is not afraid to laugh at himself and go along with the joke. But this connection between the two allows Franco to tap into a deeper level of the pseudo-filmmaker, his gaze alone will often convey how he is deep in his own subconscious while also not being self-aware in any capacity.
Franco invited a handful of his friends to be apart of the film also, so the crew of The Room is star-studded in its own right, with Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Josh Hutcherson, Paul Sheer and Academy Award-nominee Jacki Weaver making up the ensemble, and while each of them have their moment to shine, like Weaver delivering the iconic “I definitely have breast cancer” line, the Sestero-Wiseau relationship remains the centrepiece to the film and it never deviates too far from the thematic throughline. Even after the duo have a fight and go their separate ways, they reconnect for the premiere at the end of the film. The premiere goes about as well as you would imagine the premiere of The Room would go, with the audience first reacting in horror to the awful film-making, deadpan acting and gratuitous frames of Wiseau’s naked body. As the film progresses, however, the audience comes to find humour in the imperfections and by the end they love watching the film. While Tommy initially bursts into tears and marches out of the screening, Greg explains to him that he made a crowd-pleasing film and that he should simply embrace that. It’s finally here where Tommy begins to garner self-awareness and takes pride in his imperfect attempt at a film. I think that this film is essential viewing for any film student, or really any student in general, to learn that things don’t always turn out the way you want them to. Sometimes you go in trying to make a Tennessee Williams-esque drama and you inadvertently make one of the funniest so-bad-it’s-good films of all time. The most important thing is to own it and take it in your stride rather than shy away from it and pretend it never happened. Because if Tommy Wiseau did that, no one would ever have had that rooftop scene to re-enact By Meabh Aine Broderick In every aspect of culture, trends come and go. In the early noughties, the velour tracksuit took the fashion world by storm while blonde frosted tips seemed to be sprouting from men’s hair everywhere. Thankfully these trends were short lived and have since been long forgotten. However, in the world of film, some trends are not so easy to say goodbye to and one particularly stubborn trend is that of nostalgia. The use of nostalgia manifests itself in several different ways. It may be a remake of a decade’s old film or a long-awaited sequel released a dozen years after the original films release. It could come in the form of an adaptation of a beloved comic book or novel from your childhood or simply possess countless references to fond memories of the past littered throughout. No matter how it is used, there is no denying that audiences, young and old, seem to respond. Of the top ten grossing films worldwide of 2018, it can be argued that each of them benefitted from nostalgia in one way or another. Whether they are frontrunners in the age of comic book adaptations like Avengers Infinity War or Black Panther, a call back to the glory days of historic music legends like Bohemian Rhapsody, or additions to beloved childhood franchises such as Fantastic Beasts, The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and The Incredibles 2, they all managed to climb their way to the top by tapping into that longing for the past that resides inside all of us. However, as is to be expected when dealing with something so near and dear to our hearts, the slightest misstep can spark a wave of hate and outrage. To explore this, I am going to discuss the initial reactions to the trailer for the upcoming remake of beloved Disney classic The Lion King. In 2017, Disney announced all the upcoming remakes and reboots they had planned to release in the coming years. While the whole list seemed to inspire both excitement and fear, the one that seemed to spark the most discussion was The Lion King. Since the initial release of that list, anticipation only grew, until finally, Disney eased the pain that accompanied the agonising wait for its release by giving us a taste of what to expect with a teaser trailer for The Lion King in November 2018. Admittedly, after one watch of this trailer I could hear my inner child scream with excitement and I have to say that, for a moment, I was sold. However, when my anticipation came to be too much and I craved another viewing, something seemed to change. There was something all too familiar about what I was watching. Maybe it was simply the sound of the frequently referenced cry that opens the Circle of Life or the iconic image of the lion cub lifted up to the heavens. Or maybe it was linked to the voice of the Mufasa we all know and love from the original making a reappearance. Whatever it was that was sparking this feeling, I decided to take a look back at the trailer for the original The Lion King from 1994. It was there where I found my answers. The reason it felt so familiar was because I had seen it before. The trailer for The Lion King (2019) is really nothing more than a shot for shot remake of the original. Of course the animation style was vastly different as this newer version was made to replicate a ‘live-action’ remake of the original. However, apart from this, the trailer offered nothing new to excite me about the film. The whole point in remaking beloved classics is to add to what we already loved and offer new and interesting developments to aspects that may have been absent from the original. This is why the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book proved to be such a success. The original version was made in 1967 and only had a runtime of 78 minutes. This meant that for a modern audience, who had become accustomed to a runtime above 90 minutes, a lot was left to be desired, calling for a modern reincarnation of the classic. This is where I take issue with the decision to remake The Lion King. The 1994 version is arguably Disney’s greatest animated film to date. I was not born until years after its release, yet the love for the film remained as strong as ever and was passed onto me in my early years. It continues to garner praise and appreciation from both the public and critics today. Therefore, no matter how well-made the remake is, it will always be held in the shadow of the original. Despite my scepticism, I was shocked to find, the very evening following the trailers release, an outpouring of love surfaced online as audience members could not contain their excitement. It appears as if nobody cared that they had seen it all before. In fact that is what excited them the most. They rejoiced at the idea of reliving their childhood and likely did not want to see anything new. While the trailer alone is certainly not enough to truly judge the film, Disney appears to be intentionally building it in the exact same image as the original to incite this very reaction. With nostalgia as its driving force, I have no doubt that audiences will come out in their droves on the film’s opening weekend and no matter what their response is, the film will likely be a huge financial success. Therein lies our answer for why studios seem to be relying more and more on nostalgia to promote their films. Money, which comes as no big surprise, is the driving force behind all of this. As long as audiences keep showing up and nostalgia remains as successful in its production of profits, studios will continue to pump out this content until there is nothing left to remake.
But why exactly do modern audiences relentlessly crave this warm feeling of nostalgia? While it has been around for decades in films such as Big (1988) and Stand by Me (1986), which remind adult viewers of their young carefree days, in the last decade, nostalgia seems to have dominated Hollywood to the point where it is has become difficult to find fully original content. It is easy to criticise the trend and say its existence is due to Hollywood's loss of ideas but if this were the true reason, audiences would likely not respond so positively. There is no real way of knowing the exact reasoning, but it is possible that the growing demand for such content suggests that the desire may not lie in the longing for the past but the disdain for the present. The current political climate is filled with negativity as the future is filled with uncertainties. While America is under the power of a heavily criticised leader, Europe sits in fear of what Brexit may mean for the future. Meanwhile, global warming is threatening our future while war endangers the lives of millions. In a world filled with uncertainty, the only thing that remains unchanged and certain is our past. Therefore, the increasing demand for nostalgic content may stem from this. Frequently, the memories retained from the past are positive, either because the subject was too young to have been aware of the problems or has chosen to forget them. Either way, the desire to reflect on the past does not indicate that the present is in a worse state than the years prior to it. It simply suggests that audiences seek to escape the uncertainty of the future by reflecting on the unchanging, fond memories of the past. by John Finbarr McGarr Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) is directed by Brian Singer and Dexter Fletcher, allegedly. It is a biopic of legendary singer, Freddie Mercury. Or it could be a biopic of the band Queen -- it is not clear which. Mercury is on all of the promotional material and is the lead character, but the film never really delves into his life beyond what can be found on Wikipedia. The majority of the film is dedicated to the rise of popularity of Queen, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does it in the most bizarre way: by showing how each individual song was written and how the public reacted to it. It all felt like filler, as if the writers realised they were lacking half a movie’s worth of story, so instead opted to show off Queen songs in the hopes that the audiences would get excited by seeing something they recognise. The most frustrating part is that there was a genuinely interesting story to be told about Freddie Mercury, but the remaining band members of Queen apparently refused to allow it to be shown because it focused too much on Mercury. So, instead, the story is just the writers ticking off a checklist of Queen songs. The only song that had an interesting creation was the titular song Bohemian Rhapsody. The debate with the producer over the song’s length was potentially interesting, but it ends before it gets the chance to take off. The audience’s general reaction to Bohemian Rhapsody was another source of potential interest, but it was conveyed in such a strange way: The film shows the cast re-enacting the iconic music video as quotes from critics begin to surface across the screen. It even highlights the bigger news outlets, like the Wall Street Journal, making the film come across as arrogant and egotistical. While modern audiences may disagree with the initial reaction to Bohemian Rhapsody, the movie essentially villainizes any negative opinion toward the song. Another aspect of the scene is that it feels so lazy. It would not be surprising to hear that showing off all the negative critiques was added as a last minute decision. Speaking of lazy, the plot is generic and uninspired--the writers probably didn’t know that they had to have an idea of what the movie was going to be before they start writing. In the beginning, there is an actual scene that goes something like (paraphrasing): “Oh no, our lead singer just abandoned us and tonight’s the night we perform, we need a new singer right now!” Then Freddy Mercury introduces himself to them. Apparently, that is not how Queen formed, so instead of showing the real way the band came together, someone thought it would be a good idea to go with the most clichéd approach possible. This would be acceptable for a children’s movie but not for a movie that is aimed at audiences aged 15+. All of the people who grew up with Queen in the 70s and 80s would be in their forties or fifties now, so why is it written for children to understand? Every single story beat is so predictable that you can see it coming from a mile away: Everything from the aforementioned cliché of Queen coming together, to the band learning that their latest song is a huge hit, to when the band members fall out with each before regrouping before the big performance. When Queen (in real life) first found out one of their songs was a success was when all four of them were in an elevator together and heard it over the radio; they nearly crashed the elevator because of how excited they got when they heard the news. In the movie, instead of showing that, someone walks into the room and tells them the news-- the most basic, barebones, forgettable, lazy and uninteresting way of conveying that information. The plot is so clichéd that you could time it so that you can go to the toilet and not miss anything important.
The whole movie probably felt so directionless because it did not have a director. According to rumours, Brian Singer was fired after he continually failed to show up on set, forcing the cinematographer to direct some scenes, and then Dexter Fletcher stepped in to finish off the post production. Therefore, many scenes lack any sort of creativity or vision behind them. It felt so mechanical that you could easily imagine the process of filming this movie; set up scene, press record, act out scene, cut. The finale of this movie, the legendary Live Aid performance, was so underwhelming that it deflated the whole scene. The CGI of the crowd and stadium stood out like a sore thumb, forcing me to think of the small handful of extras that were actually on set. To make it worse, the camera kept cutting back to the same few excited faces of the Live Aid audience, making it seem so small-scale and minimal. Live Aid was a famous event because of how huge it was, but the movie does it a disservice by reminding the audience that they couldn’t even assemble a crowd larger than twelve people. To the movie’s credit, all of the performances were fine, Rami Malek was decent as Freddy Mercury, although it was incredibly obvious whenever he was lip syncing. The set design was good and there were a few moments that were funny. However, I am genuinely struggling to think of anything else of quality. Why does this movie even exist? The non-existent director clearly had no interest in the project, the band members of Queen limited the movie’s depth by restricting what could be shown, and anything of note that happened in real life was replaced with a less exciting version. The irony of Bohemian Rhapsody is that it depicts Queen as a unique band that broke trends and used their talent and creativity to propel themselves to the music legends that they are today, while the movie is the most cookie-cutter, by the books and conformist series of events imaginable. Rating: 4/10 |
UCC Film WritersEditorials and reviews by students at University College Cork. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|