Following on from last year’s Happy New Year, Colin Burstead, it would seem that there’s definitely a subgenre of “family reunion that doesn’t go to plan”...
Happy Birthday (Fete De Famille)
Dir. Cedric Kahn / Dur. 101 mins / Country. France
Festival Strand:- Love
In A Nutshell:- A family gathering for matriarch Andrea is derailed as interrelations between family members starin to breaking point...
The Good:- There’s a solid cast on offer here headed up by Catherine Deneuve as the matriarch of the family, trying to hold things together for her birthday party, with director Cedric Kahn also taking on acting duties to portray serious older son Vincent. The film plays nicely with setting up a combination of dynamics which it then plays around with, turning around some conceptions you may have had about some of the characters.
The Bad:- Not necessarily bad as such but you;re ultimately left feeling that this is the sort of film that you’ve seen before, Also (and this is possibly a little unfair) but it suffers in comparison to Happy New Year, Colin Burstead which treads over familiar ground but does so in a way that I found much more interesting.
The Verdict:- It’s an enjoyable film with an engaging cast but probably (for me anyway) suffered from being up against much stronger competition within the festival, leaving this one a mid-tier film for me - one that I enjoyed but has not left much of a lasting impression.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- At the Vue West End for this one in lovely comfy recliney seats but no intro or Q&A for this one.
Up, up and way in my beautiful, my beautiful ballooooooon….
The Aeronauts
Dir. Tom Harper / Dur. 101 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- The Mayor Of London’s Gala
In A Nutshell:- High flying ballooning adventure based on real life events
The Good:- Based on real life attempts to break ballooning altitude records combined with a desire to legitimise the new science of meteorology, Harper’s film is na absolute feats for the eyes. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are on fine form accompanied by a solid supporting cast of British stalwarts (Tom Courtenay, Anne Reid, Rebecca Front, Tin McInnerney). The aerial sequences truly deserve to be seen on a big screen and are properly tense and exciting whilst simultaneously provoking an almost childlike sense of wonder. Also, on a purely personal note, I always enjoy seeing places that I’ve known since a child on screen (hell, Greenwich Park and Observatory)
The Bad:- It is certainly one of the most Hollywood of the films I’ve been to see at the festival. Outside of the ballooning scenes, the flashbacks / framing story is fairly pedestrian. It’s the sort of story we’ve seen many times times before and doesn’t particularly offer anything new - it even has the grudging slow hand clap of the main character’s rival during a triumphal scene. It’s only really the calibre of the cast that carries these us through these scenes.
The Verdict:- It’s certainly a film that is worth seeing on the big screen for the spectacle and tension of the ballooning scenes. I was gripped all the way through these scenes. The rest of the story is a little pedestrian but that doesn’t detract from a fun and exciting adventure film.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- Back at the custom-built Embankment Garden Cinema for this oje. No intro or Q&A sadly for this one and another one that I’d managed to pick with subtitles again. Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't go to this kind of big budget fare at the festival again - much as I enjoyed it, I’d rather be finding new and possibly odd little films that I’m less likely to be able to see at the multiplex.
Twelve films in and surprisingly the first fully sci-fi entry on the list
Synchronic
Dir. Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead / Dur. 96 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- Cult
In A Nutshell:- Two paramedics find themselves drawn into a mystery surrounding a number of deaths related to a new designer drug.
The Good:- I enjoy a good independent sci fi film as much as I enjoy a good blockbuster sci fi film. The gulf between budgets for the two tends to mean that often independent sci fi is more conceptual and less effects driven. This film feels like a melding of the indie film sensibility, with more of an emphasis on character interaction, with a big budget Hollywood feel (albeit on a relatively low budget). The initial scenes create a suitably strange and creepy feel detailing the effects that this drug is having on people and are shot with a real sense of style. Jamie Dornan and Anthony Mackie have an engaging chemistry, crafting a believable friendship between the main characters. When the inevitable exposition does arrive, it’s handled with wit and style and no small amount of emotion. The ending is also satisfying and bucks against the more downbeat trend that you tend to get in an indie film.
The Bad:- The opening oddness and spookiness is somewhat dispelled when the exposition does arrive. While the rest of the film is still enjoyable, it loses a little of the sense of oddity that it has to begin with.
The Verdict:- An enjoyable sci fi flick which feels like it manages to successfully meld an indie sensibility with that of a big screen Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an intriguing combination and I’m definitely keen to see some of their other films.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- This one was at the Empire Haymarket - another cinema that I’ve never been to before. The screen is massive and very slightly curved - I liked it, felt very immersive. Co-directors and writers Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead were on hand for intro and Q&A. Their last couple of films have screened at the festival and there was certainly a lot of love for them in the room with a number of return viewers on hand to question them. They talked a little about wanting to buck the trend of dour endings for indie movies as well as talking about how they like to link their movies with relatively subtle nods and references (which obviously I didn’t get as this is the first of their films that I’ve seen).
So on Day 5, I had a big gap between the first and last film which meant I could… fit in a few more other films! Yeah, I might have gone off the deep end on this one. Comics, film and a lot of conflicting buzz - I was always going to see this one…
(WARNING:- I’ve tried to be vague but there may be some details which could be considered spoilery - you have been warned)
Joker
Dir. Todd Philips / Dur. 122 mins
In A Nutshell:- Really? You’ve not heard about this by now? OK, it’s a happy guy who spends his life as a successful clown...or something...
The Thoughts:- There’s a lot to unpick with this one so I’m just going to go with a big rambling chunk in the middle here and then hopefully wrap it up to some sort of conclusion. As with any film that has had such a weird buzz around (the initial positive hype, the inevitable backlash, the slightly hysterical amping up of security around perceived violence), it’s very hard to divorce all of that and view it objectively as a film. It’s also, being a lifelong comics fan, hard to separate it from comparisons to comics that have gone before. I’ll do my best.
Let’s start with the positives - the 70s vibe, from the opening old school Warner Bros logo is fully realised. It definitely evokes the 70s era Scorsese films that are clearly its biggest influences. Joaquin Phoenix is great - it’s a performance that holds you all the way through and he deservedly is receiving plaudits for it. It very much holds the centre of the film and keeps you compelled through to the end to see what becomes of him. Frances Conroy is always a strong presence and no less so here as Arthur Fleck’s mother. De Niro is good as the flipside to his King Of Comedy turn but perhaps draws a little too much attention to the Scorsese parallels.
It starts to get problematic with what it’s trying to say. Is it a statement on how society fails those with mental illness? On how programmes of austerity lead to those who need society’s help being the ones most disadvantaged? On mob mentality and the conflation of legitimate preset with violent uprising? Or is it just a dark gritty crime drama with superhero connections? Or a character study with an unreliable narrator, some of which may or may not have happened? It’s partly all of those things at once and, as a consequence, it leaves the film feeling very much like it’s trying to tell you that it's ‘about something” but I’m not sure I came away with any clear idea of what that something was.
One note as a comics fan - this may feel like a big departure from the usual big screen superhero fare but, in the comics world, these kind of darker, more "realistic" takes on superhero fiction have ben around for quite some time so it doesn't feel quite as new or shocking from that point of view.
One last thing and on that that’s likely to be problematic for UK audiences more so than in other countries - a key moment in the film is accompanied by a Gary Glitter song. I can understand his songs being in a film made in the 70s but it feels a little irresponsible to utilise the work of a convicted paedophile now (even though he doesn’t profit and it goes to the record company, it doesn’t sit right that anyone should profit off his work anymore).
The Verdict:- Is it a masterpiece? No, I don’t think so. Is it the best film DC have put out so far (in a post-Marvel world)? Yes, by a long shot but that bar is sadly fairly low. Is it a good film? I would have to go with “Yes, but..” as the answer. It’s very good in some ways and very muddled in others.
Side Note:- While sat waiting for the next film at the festival to begin after watching Joker, the two women behind me were talking about the film by pure coincidence. The one who had seen it was saying that sections of the film where he was the Joker were great but she didn't want to have to sit through a long origin story to get there. I’m still baffled as to what she expected from a film that has been very cleary marketed as being about the origin of the Joker….
We’re on to Day 5 and only two LFF films to day… but they were at opposite ends of the day so I squeezed another couple of non-fest films in the middle to pass the time (I may have a problem…)
The Lighthouse
Dir. Robert Eggers / Dur. 110 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- Cult Gala
In A Nutshell:- Isolation, guilt, fear, anger, madness, a tinge of the supernatural and more come together in a genre-defying blend for the tale of two cut-off lighthouse keepers
The Good:- There a distinctive style right from the off both visually and linguistically - visually in the use of black and white film shot in 4:3 (i.e. non-widescreen) to create a vintage and claustrophobic feel and linguistically in the stylised 19th century nautical language the two main characters employ. It’s essentially a two-hander between Willem Dafoe’s grizzled old sea dog and Robert Pattinson’s brooding first timer and the power play between the two of them forms the core of the film. Pattinson’s on good form but the movie really belongs to Dafoe who definitely seems to be revelling in his role (and rightly so). The sets and location adds to the feeling of isolation and them being trapped while the direction plays with the notion of questioning whether what we’re seeing is the truth or not. It’s pretty grim in places but can be surprisingly funny as well.
The Bad:- The only minor niggle that I had was that Robert pattinson’s accent felt like it was slipping a few times but it;s only a minor niggle. Also (no reflection on the film), I had chosen a screening with full audio description without realising it which was a little distracting (I’m definitely not having a go at subtitling - it’s great that they cater for viewers with hearing difficulties at the festival - I just wish I’d been paying more attention when I booked it as I’d rather have watched them without*)
The Verdict:- An absolute smash - loved it. This is definitely in the top set of films for this year’s fest (I’m not alone in this opinion as it was apparently so popular that they added extra screenings for it).
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- Back at the custom-built for the festival Embankment Garden Cinema for this one. Director Robert Eggers and actor Willem Dafoe were on hand for a Q&A. The buildings were all completely constructed on the island for the shoot (which was weather-beaten and inhospitable). Willem Dafoe came across as very charming and easygoing - when questioned about his method, he said that, if a director builds a complete world for him to play in (as Eggers had done), it’s very easy to turn up and say your lines. For the duration of the shoot, he lived in a fisherman’s cottage nearby. He said that, during the shoot, he didn't really get to know Pattinson as he’s a private person and they wer shooting long days but has got to know him better subsequently.
* “But you watch foreign films with subtitles?” Yes, but I speak English so don’t need them for an English language film.
This was one of the films that I was looking forward to the most, being a big fan of pretty everything Taika Waititi has done. So what was the verdict?
Jojo Rabbit
Dir. Taika Waititi / Dur. 108 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- Headline Gala
In A Nutshell:- A young Hitler youth (accompanied by imaginary friend Adolf Hitler) discovers a Jewish girl hiding in his loft in the latest comedy from Waititi
The Good:- Waititi has a knack for crafting comedies that, as well as being funny, contain a tremendous amount of heart. Jojo Rabbit is no exception, despite the somewhat unusual nature of the subject matter (there really haven’t been a huge number of comedies about Nazi Germany for some reason). In large part, this is helped by a strong cast. Another of Waititi’s knacks is in casting young actors who are genuinely good and more than capable of carrying a feature film themselves (James Rolleston in Boy and Julian Dennison in Hunt For The Wilderpeople) - he’s hit success again with Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo. Archie Yates as Yorki is also good fun (but thankfully used sparingly). Thomasin Mackenzie, who was great in Leave No Trace, has more of the emotional heavy lifting for which she is more than capable and the adult cast are all of top form too with Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Stephen Merchant providing strong comedy support. Of course, the standout though goes to Taika Waititi himself as a child’s imagined version of Adolf Hitler - another top comic performance from Waititi and a lot broader than some of his more deadpan previous roles.
The Bad:- Scarlett Johansson is good as Jojo’s mother but didn’t quite seem to fully gel for me for some reason. Alfie Allen feels a little wasted in his role as the subtly hinted lover of Sam Rockwell’s Nazi captain as it doesn’t seem to amount to much but it’s a minor niggle.
The Verdict:- It was exactly what I was hoping for from a Taika Waititi film -funny and silly with an immense amount of heart. Easily one of the highlights of the festival.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- Early membership booking paid off as I had a second row seat for an intro from Taika Waititi, Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin Mackenzie, Archie Yates and Alfie Allen along with producer Carthew Neal. Waititi was on top form, peking from behind the curtain before his entrance, mock-falling on the way to the stage and starting to go through and thank/compliment every single member of the audience for turning up. He commented on the perception of the subject matter (“it’s been 80 years since the last Hitler comedy, The Great Dictator. Too soon?”) and talked a little bit about adapting it from the original book. All in all, a fun intro to the film and one that I’m glad I was there for!
Film 3 of Day 4 and the day’s strong streak is continuing...
Little Monsters
Dir. Abe Forsythe / Dur. 94 mins / Country. Australia, UK, US
Festival Strand:- Cult
In A Nutshell:- A slacker musician goes on his nephew’s kindergarten school trip in attempt to impress the teacher in the midst of a zombie outbreak...
The Good:- While it’s been placed in the Cult strand because, well, zombies, this could easily have been placed in the Laugh strand too. It’s an absolute blast and manages to be an odd combination of offensive, charming and gross-out all at once without once feeling like it’s lost control of its tone. In much the same way that Spaced is a flatshare sitcom that gets invaded by zombies, this is a romantic comedy (albeit a pretty foul-mouthed one) that gets interrupted by zombies. Alexander England as Dave and Lupita Nyong’o as Miss Caroline spark off each other nicely but the scene-stealing award definitely goes to Josh Gad as increasingly depraved and deranged children’s TV host Teddy McGiggle. The film has a nice line in self-awareness too - there’s a matter-of-factness about the whole zombie outbreak (“are these slow one or fast ones?”) and a puncturing of convention (“zombies don’t sing!”) that’s pleasing given that, these days, the jokey label of romzomcom applied to Shaun Of The Dead is near enough an actual genre.
The Bad:- Honestly, this film was just such a fun ride that I can't think of anything particularly that would go in the bad column. I thoroughly enjoyed myself all the way through. There aren’t even any particularly irritating child actors which is almost a miracle.
The Verdict:- A fun zombie comedy that manages to be both crude and gross while still remaining utterly charming at the same time which is an insanely tricky tonal balancing act to pull off. Definitely worth 94 minutes of your precious time.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- Director Abe Forsythe and producer Jodi Matterson were on hand for an intro and Q&A. In the intro, director Forsythe talked about how his son’s extreme allergies were handled by his new kindergarten teacher being an inspiration for the film and that this film is dedicated to kindergarten teachers everywhere! Producer Matterson talked a little about different reactions to parts of the film around the film and if the American reaction of a sharp intake of breath to the dropping of the C-bomb would be repeated here (it wasn’t - we laughed). Sadly, once again, I had to skip the Q&A as there was no way I was going to be late for the next film...
Second film of Day 4 and next up we have the sort of film that going to a festival is all about.
The Lost Okoroshi
Dir. Abba Makama / Dur. 94 mins / Country. Nigeria
Festival Strand:- Laugh
In A Nutshell:- Security guard Raymond awakes one morning to find himself transformed into an ancestral spirit, the okoroshi...
The Good:- This made me think of the sort of film I would have made back in the days when I had delusions of filmmaking - not in terms of subject but in terms of style. It’s a lo-fi low budget affair that decides to embrace and play with that guerilla feel to a lot of the scenes and make it into a virtue. Seun Ajayi is a lively and engaging lead as Raymond - it’s almost a shame that he spends much of the film covered up in costume. The costumes for the okoroshi and the other ancestral spirits are great - bright and appealing. It is very funny in places but also has a certain air of creepiness about it - in places, the aural design reminded me a little of David Lynch who often uses sound to create an ominous sensation. There are also some nice moments of humour where the subtitles were far more formal than the dialogue on screen (although I’m not sure if that was intentional or not). The squabbling members of IPSSHRR (The Igbo People’s Secret Society for Heritage, Restoration and Reclamation) also have a distinct whiff of Life Of Brian’s revolutionaries about them. Although billed a s comedy (and it is funny in a lot of places), the film itself has more of the structure of a horror film about it.
The Bad:- The extended coda with the psychiatrist at the end felt fairly flat - I get what they were lining up with that but it felt like a lot of dull exposition which they could probably have left out.
The Verdict:- Exactly the sort of thing that film festivals are for - an odd mix of comedy, horror and satire with a guerilla filmmaking feel to it and not the sort of thing you’re likely to find down the local multiplex.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- Back to the ICA for this one and it’s already become my least favourite venue in terms of comfort (very functional with all seats on the same level making it likely that the people in front of you are going to block the screen). Director Abba Makama was on hand for a Q&A but unfortunately I couldn’t stick around for that as I needed to make my way over to the Southbank for the next film...
We’re up to Day 4 of the fest and this was a bumper day - four films in the one day so let’s kick off with this one...
The Climb
Dir. Michael Angelo Covino / Dur. 97 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- Laugh
In A Nutshell:- An episodic overview in single take scenes of the ups and downs of a friendship between two men
The Good:- Opening with a bike ride that becomes a chase due to revelations of infidelity, The Climb follows Mike and Kyle (played by real life friends and co-writers/director Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin) as they attempt to navigate their intertwined lives following this bombshell. While the buddy comedy may be tried and tested ground, there’s a refreshing feeling of honesty to this one that prevents it from seeming like more of the same. The cast are all likeable and engaging and there are some genuine laugh out loud moments in there. It’s also aware enough of the tropes of both buddy and romantic comedy to wrong foot you a few times when it seems like it’s heading in a familiar direction.
The Bad:- It’s a rare beast this one in that I can't think of anything that I didn't particularly enjoy about it. My only real criticism would be that George Wendt is in it and he’s criminally underused (come on, it’s Norm from Cheers - make the most of him!)
The Verdict:- Equal parts funny and charming with grounded and believable performances from the two main leads, this is a funny indie comedy which manages to be feelgood without being cheesy. Definitely one of the highlights of the festival for me
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- This was at the Curzon Mayfair - my first time there and I liked it as a venue. It’s got comfortable seating with the feel of an old-school cinema. Intro and Q&A were from co-writer Kyle Marvin who talked a little bit about how the first bike-riding scene was shot as a short film and then used to get backers for a full length film. A lot of the film is shot in continuous takes which made for a challenging shoot as, if you make a mistake 9 minutes into a take, you have to reset and go back to the beginning. It also left little room for improvisation as everything had to be so tightly choreographed.
During a scene in the film where Kyle falls through the ice while ice-fishing, Kyle revealed that he actually did that for real and, given the number of takes that they did, he did it around twenty times - on one occasion being unable to act properly as his eyelids had frozen shut when he emerged! It had been fun to write about the various painful things happening to the characters but realised it was less fun when they had to act them out...
Time to round off Day 3 with a modern western...
Bacurau
Dir. Kleber Mendonça Filho, Juliano Dornelles / Dur. 130 mins / Country. Brazil
Festival Strand:- Thrill Gala
In A Nutshell:- The spaghetti western gets a modern Brazilian makeover as a struggling town comes under an onslaught from rich hunters.
The Good:- There’s a lot of nostalgia for films of the seventies but this film feels very much like it’s putting its own spin on those old films*. This certainly has a lot of a familiar tropes of the spaghetti western - the isolated town, the return of a prodigal child, the corrupt local politician, the invading force, etc. - but that doesn’t make this film feel derivative. It’s clearly marching to its beat with a sense of style and purpose while clearly paying homage to those films that preceded it. It’s lively and engaging and, like all good spaghetti westerns, surprisingly violent at times. The cats are strong as well, in particular Bárbara Colen as Teresa and Thomas Aquino as Pacote / Acacio with Silvero Pereira getting the scene-stealing moments as the deranged revolutionary-type Lunga.
The Bad:- I’m normally a fan of Udo Kier but his performance here felt a little muted at times. Also, not necessarily a bad point but any wider points being made about the current political situation in Brazil would be lost on me as it’s not something I’m up on (I’d like to pretend I am for the purposes of looking all smart and that in a chin-strokey sort of way but it would be a lie).
The Verdict:- An enjoyable modern take on the spaghetti western with the occasional spot of ultra-violence that would have made Sam Peckinpah proud.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- This was my first time at Leicester Square’s flagship cinema, the Odeon Luxe (the one where they have all the red carpet premieres) since they reopened it earlier in the year following major refurbishment. I have to say that it is incredible inside. I was in the stalls which are all recliners with plenty of legroom and the screen is suitably massive. It’s a lovely venue and I’ll definitely go back there (in fact, I will be for one more screening in this festival).
An intro (but no Q&A) with directors Kleber Mendonça Filho & Juliano Dornelles as well as stars Bárbara Colen who determined by a show of hands that a fair chunk of the audience were Brazilian!
* Hey, the seventies was more than 40 years ago now. All those films from that era are as old to us now as the Mark Brothers were to those who were watching Jaws and Star Wars...
We’re back on track now for Day 3 with this cracker...
Cold Case Hammarskjold
Dir. Mads Brügger / Dur. 128 mins / Country. Denmark-Norway-Sweden-Belgium
Festival Strand:- Documentary Competition
In A Nutshell:- UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in a plane crash. It was listed as an accident but was something much more sinister at work?
The Good:- Mads Brugger is a documentarian in a similar vein to that of Nick Broomfield, Louis Theroux or Jon Ronson. He’s not afraid to go down the rabbit hole of potentially contentious or dangerous subjects but does so with humour and the engaging appeal of a showman. It’s a fascinating topic, starting off as an investigation into a long since abandoned cold case, long suspected but never proved to be a murder, before veering off into truly horrific and terrifying territory. It’s a complex, confusing and densely layered tale, engagingly shot and told.
The Bad:-At one point, I questioned the point of one of the framing devices but when the film itself then brings up these questions, it's hard to really count that as bad point.
The Verdict:- Admittedly only four films in but this is a highlight of the festival already and exactly the sort of film I was hoping to discover. It’s definitely going on the Best of The Fest list and I highly recommend this one if you get a chance to watch it.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- The screening took place at the Curzon Soho - a cinema I realised that I hadn’t been to since 2009 when I hired it for a screening of my own film, incidental Weekend. Time is a harsh mistress…
Brugger was there for the intro and Q&A. In his intro, he stated that the most important organ in the human body is, of course, the bladder and so he endeavours to keep his documentaries to 90 minutes. He has failed with this one - fortunately, it was gripping enough that the bladder didn't even get a look in. Having written last time about the pitfalls of Q&As, I actually felt the urge to ask something for the first time and got my question answered! Hopefully, I didn't fall into any of those pitfalls and wasn't an absolute bellend. I have to say that this was one of the best Q&As that I've been to as, given the amount of stuff that is thrown at you in this doc, everyone had lots of questions and Brugger was more than happy to expand on most of them (the exception naturally being “what were you told when a subject asked you to stop recording?”)
(Well, I say intermission but, at this point, the festival itself is over. However, I've been to enough films to keep this going for some time so strap in - we've got a ways to go yet. In the meantime, here's a little palette cleanser...)
One of the staples of both screenings at the BFI in general and the London Film Festival are Q&A sessions with the creatives behind the film - usually the director / writer but often the on-screen talent as well. Over the last few years, I’ve been to a fair few of these and I do enjoy them. I’m always fascinated in the “how” when it comes to films so I’ll definitely be drawn to a Q&A. That said, though, there is a part of the Q&A that regularly provokes a creeping sense of dread in me. It's the part of the session where the interviewer says, “And now I think we’ve got time for a few questions from the audience.”
This can sometimes produce some gems and it’s not always a bad thing but I have begun to notice certain types of questioner who always pop up. Maybe not all of them at once but one or two are always in there. Below then is my handy-dandy guide (warning if you're on the receiving end) to the types of Q&A-er you can expect to encounter…
- The “Potted Biographer” - this person doesn’t really have a question as such; they’re relishing the chance to get hold of the microphone so they can relay some interminable anecdote about their own life
- The “Aren’t I Clever?” - again, not necessarily a question here but a long-winded pointing out of the bleeding obvious in order to demonstrate to the director/writer just how much they got it; actual question usually results in an answer from said director/writer that doesn’t amount to much more than “yes, you’re right”.
- The “All Over The Shop - the less coherent cousin of the “Aren’t I Clever?” in that they’re clearly trying to make a deep and meaningful point whilst also having absolutely no idea what they’re saying; normally forces the director/writer to construct their own question in order to have something to answer
- The “Explain it To Me” - the complete flipside to the “Aren’t I Clever?”; points out that they’ve noticed symbolism in the film then asks the director/writer to be bluntly explicit about what it all means. The director/writer’s answer is always polite but firmly translates as being told to “eff off”.
- The “Nitpicking Pensioner” - focuses on an inconsequential detail then somehow believes that they’re entitled to a long back and forth conversation about a detail that means absolutely nothing to anyone else.
- The “Awkward Insulter” - normally someone with very poor social skills who misunderstands the difference between banter with your friends and being rude to someone you’ve never met before in the mistaken belief that they are being funny.
Of course there are thoughtful and interesting questions that do delight and interest the panleist but there are always one or two of these knocking about. So beware - if you’re ever tempted into Qing in the hope of an A, always do your level best not to fall into one of the above pitfalls. You run the risk of making an entire audience inwardly groan...
Second film of day 2 and, sad to say, we’ve hit a bump in the road on the festival journey...
The Antenna
Dir. Orçun Behram / Dur. 115 mins / Country. Turkey
Festival Strand:- Cult
In A Nutshell:- In an apartment block in a dystopian city, the installation of a new satellite dish for the glorious leader’s first midnight broadcast heralds the arrival of a mysterious black goo which begins to seep its way through the building...
The Good:- It starts off fairly strongly, with a cheap 80s aesthetic to this dystopian world. There’s a nice sense of style to some of the shots and the deliberate pace builds the tension somewhat as it becomes clear that something strange is going on in the block. There are also a few nice moments of David Cronenberg-style body horror to set the audience feeling a little squeamish.
The Bad:- Sadly, it doesn’t live up to any of this early promise. The film soon descends into a hodge-podge jumble of relatively uninteresting horror film tropes which have been seen many times before and pulled off in much better ways. The slow pacing, which worked nicely to start with, starts to become a chore as you get into the latter part of the film and I have to admit that I found myself just willing the thing to end. At one point, I was even beginning to get concerned that they would pull out the old “it was all a dream” ending. Never a good sign when your final thought at the end of the film is, “Well, at least I can go home now”.
The Verdict:- Early creepy promise is squandered as the film descends into a boring megamix of many a tried, tested and tired horror film trope. A real disappointment and the first festival film that I haven’t really enjoyed at all. Still, this is part and parcel of the festival - it’s a form of Russian Roulette as to what you’re going to get.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- The Prince Charles Cinema for this one so already familiar with that one, given that I’m a member (yes, I do have a few memberships).
No Q&A for this one. Most tellingly, standard convention at the end of a festival screening is that the audience applauds. This screening was greeted with stony silence and a number of swift exits for the door.
Day 2 of the festival and we kick off the first of today’s double bill with a Bulgarian comedy drama about grief (I know, traditional comedic stuff)
The Father
Dir. Kristina Grozeva, Petar Valchanov / Dur. 85 mins / Country. Bulgaria-Greece-Italy
Festival Strand:- Laugh
In A Nutshell:- A widower believes that his wife is trying to contact him from the beyond and drags his son along for the ride.
The Good:- While a number of characters pop in and out, it’s very much a two-hander between Vasil (Ivan Savov), the father, and Pavel (Ivan Barnev), the son. While Savov puts in a good performance, I feel like the film really belongs to Barnev as the ultra-deadpan Pavel. It’s largely understated with moments that escalate into ludicrousness such as stealing jam from the police and the unplanned theft of a horse and cart. While dealing with a less-than-fun topic, it does manage to get some good laughs in there (although I’m not sure it;s enough of an out-and-out comedy to be part of the laugh strand). It doesn’t have a plot as such but does manage to tie together the key themes and moments very nicely at the end.
The Bad:- While I understand the decision to not include the Pavel’s wife other than in voiceover (although apparently a scene with her in person was shot) as the focus is on the father and son relationship, it does make the character little more than a cipher, serving the needs of propelling Pavel along.
The Verdict:- Another solidly enjoyable slice and a good example of the sort of film that I probably wouldn't have been aware of if not for the festival.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- First film of the festival actually at the BFI! I’ve only got a few screenings there so it does feel a little bit less like I live there…
Co-writer / co-director Petar Valchanov along with additional writer Decho Taralezhkov were the ones in attendance. They talked a bit about how they incorporated a continuity mistake into the fabric of the movie (Pavel wearing slipper instead of shoes in one of the external scenes) and, when asked how representative this was of the Bulgarian sense of humour, how this definitely wouldn't be a mainstream comedy in Bulgaria. They also talked about the film was inspired by a real life incident involving a phone call from the writer/director’s dead mother.
One side note - the main behind me had obviously decided that, as this was a comedy, he needed to laugh at everything, including one line that was deadly serious (or maybe he’d just been to see Joker...)
Displaying the breadth of film types on offer early on, next up we have a documentary.
Recorder: The Marion Stokes Project
Dir. Matt Wolf. / Dur. 87 mins / Country. USA
Festival Strand:- Documentary
In A Nutshell:- The life story Marion Stokes, a political activist who spent 30 years obsessively archiving US TV news broadcasts, amassing over 70,000 VHS tapes.
The Good:- From the mid-80s through to around 2005*, I spent an inordinate amount of my time taping things on VHS, transferring programmes from one tape to another and repairing broken VHS’s in the collection. While my collection was substantial, it pales into insignificance compared to that of Marion Stokes who recorded every US news broadcast on the main networks and some local channels from the Iran hostage situation of 1980 through to the Sandy Hook Massacre of 2012 - largely because news items are largely unarchived but also because Stokes was drawn by the shift in narrative as a something is reported over a longer term and her own desire to get to “The Truth”. The film paints a portrait of a complex individual - an activist, librarian and one-time Communist defector to Cuba whose obsessive and demanding nature made a lot of the personal relationships in her life quite difficult. Wolf has crafted a compelling narrative with the strongest contributions being from her son Michael and three long term staff members who helped man and maintain her recording 24 hours a day. One sequence in particular which uses split screen to show how the coverage of 9/11 began to unfold in real time across multiple channels highlights the potential historical and cultural picture that an archive like this can give us.
The Bad:- It maybe glosses slightly over the overall hoarding nature of her personality, only hinting at the sheer extent of her hoarding outside the news recording (brief mention is made of nine apartments worth of stuff) but, given that the narrative is focussing on the collection, this is a minor niggle.
The Verdict:- I’ve rediscovered a fondness for documentary in the last few years and this another one to the list of docs I’ve enjoyed. It might not be up there with some of my recent favourites like After The Screaming Stops and Being Frank but it’s an intriguing portrait of a complex character.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- The director Matt Wolf and Marion's son Michael were in attendance and talked a bit about how the 70,000 tapes have now been taken in by Internet Archive and are in the process of being digitised for public consumption. The venue this time was the Vue West End and, in comfort terms, this may well be my new favourite cinema. Even the seats that aren’t billed as recliners do recline a bit and are super comfy. I award The Baldy Fella Seal Of Approval (not an actual thing).
* OK, fine it was exactly 2005 as I bought myself a DVD recorder in order to be able to record Doctor Who on DVD. This really should come as no surprise if you’ve been paying attention.
You’ve had the pre-game preamble so let’s get into the main event. Basically strap in as we’ve got a fair few of these to get through...
Maggie (2019)
Dir. Yi Ok-seop / Dur. 88 mins / Country. South Korea
Festival Strand:- Cult
In A Nutshell:- A x-ray of hospital workers having sex sets a young nurse off on a path to understand if human beings are worth believing. Oh and it’s narrated by a catfish.
The Good:- It’s certainly firmly in the “quirky” camp. I’m not sure the nutshell description really encapsulates it. It doesn’t really have anything resembling a plot, more of a series of events occurring to a selection of characters. It has a nice sense of humour about it with a usage of cutaway/flashback humour that puts me in mind of Spaced and Scrubs (and I am a big fan of cutaway humour). There’s also a sensibility and feel to it that put me in mind of Amelie. It’s not as heightened or stylised as Jeunet’s work, it’s more deadpan than that, but there was a sense of whimsy about it that put me in mind of the French film.
The Bad:- I’m not sure about the ending one hundred percent. There was a deterioration and escalation of hostility in a relationship that seemed to come a bit out of nowhere to me. It could be that I misread the intent behind certain earlier scenes. I also often find with South Korean films in particular that I sometimes feel like I’m missing a cultural element - there were a couple of times during the screening when a selection of the audience laughed at something that I didn’t see as a joke.
The Verdict:- A good start to the festival. An offbeat and funny film with it’s own distinctive style and deadpan feel, coupled with strong performances from Lee Ju-young and Moon So-ri. While I’m not sure what to make of the ending, that could be down to a combination of cultural differences and tiredness on my part! If you’re looking for a charming, fun and whimsical film, this might just fit the bill.
The Venue / Intro / Q&A:- This screening was at cinema in the Institute Of Contemporary Arts on Pall Mall which I’ve not been to before (I’ve been to the ICA many, many moons ago, just not the cinema part). It’s a nice compact screen and has a definite arthouse feel in that they don;t have reserved seats. The only niggle I have is in the way the seats are laid out. They’re angled in such a way that I had to keep moving my head around to read the subtitles as they were blocked by the head of the guy in front (and I imagine mine was blocking the person behind). I;ve only got one more screening here (I think) so will be making a beeline for the front row next time. No Q&A sadly as the director couldn;t make it over but an intro from one of the programmers instead to cue up what was one of the first screenings of the festival. And we’re off!
It would definitely be fair to say that I have rekindled my love affair with cinema this year… although you could well argue that this month it’s going to tip over from love affair into dangerous obsession requiring a restraining order. It’s October again and time for that highlight of the UK cinema calendar - the BFI London Film Festival. I went along last year to thirteen of the films on offer; this year, I’ve doubled down, gone all in and various other gambling based metaphors - I’m going to 27 films over the 11 days of the festival.
This may well be madness (especially given that I’m only taking two and a bit days off work to do it) but I’m looking forward to it immensely. I think what I enjoy most about it is finding odd films that I otherwise wouldn't have been to see, as well as getting to see some major films prior to their main release. I am at the very least intrigued by all of them (I mean, I wouldn't have booked them otherwise, to be honest) but I think that the ones that I am most looking forward to are the new Taika Waititi film, Jojo Rabbit (about a young boy and his imaginary friend Adolf Hitler) and psychological horror The Lighthouse with Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson.
I’ll let the films unfold as I watch them so no previews (well, other than the two I’ve just mentioned above). Instead, here are a few of the ones I had on the hitlist but wasn’t able to book through logistics - there are 345 films showing and a lot of the ones I wanted to see clashed with each other:-
- Scales - Saudi Arabian film about a village appeasing a local mermaid through human sacrifice
- Knives Out - murder mystery from the director of Looper and Star Wars: The Last Jedi
- La Belle Epoque - Westworld-style drama about an agency that allows people to live out their fantasies in different eras
- The King - modern interpretation of Shakespeare’s Henry V
- Dogs Don’t Wear Pants - dark comedy about a dominatrix
- Days Of The Bagnold Summer - directorial debut of The Inbetweeners’ Simon Bird
- I Lost My Body - animation about a severed hand searching for its owner
It’s always hit and miss in terms of what you decide to see and what you almost decide to see but that's part of the fun. Last year, I had Bros: After The Screaming Stops and Being Frank on my list but they clashed; both films that I've subsequently seen and absolutely loved.
So if that’s what I’m not watching (and let’s face it, they sound pretty weird and wonderful as it is), what am I actually watching? Stay tuned to this very blog to find out!
While this was the penultimate screening that I went to, it seems fitting to post this one as the last as it feels like the final word to say on Monty Python as a performing group. Produced by Holly Gilliam (daughter of Terry), it follows the coming together of the group for the final run of sold out live shows at the O2 back in 2014. Surprisingly, I didn't actually go to these - there was a part of me that wasn’t sure it was be as good seeing them running through a greatest hits back catalogue many years after their glory days as a group. Having watched this documentary now, though, I realise I’d misunderstood what it was. On the one hand, as they make abundantly clear in the documentary, it was done purely to pay off debts accrued as a result of a legal case against Spamalot (the Broadway musical based on Holy Grail)! What it actually was for the Python fan, was a farewell hurrah from a group who may well have had their differences over the years but, like any family that bickers and fights, are still there for each other in the end.
The documentary also has an added level of poignancy to it as, at the time, no one was aware of Terry Jones’ dementia. Comments are made by Jones himself as to how he’s struggling with his memory as well as by the others who ascribe his difficulties during rehearsal to the fact that he hasn’t performed love for decades. It’s clear that he is having trouble, highlighted in one sequence where he makes a comment about John and the other struggle to understand what he means, which makes the fact the he goes and performs in all ten shows all the more impressive.
Overall, it’s a fascinating documentary, highlighting not just the O2 shows but the history of Monty Python performing live. Given the loss of Graham Chapman and now Terry Jones’ condition, it very much feels like this is the final outing for them as a group.
And The Rest...
There are some notable omissions from the list. I went to as much as I could but sometimes I had other stuff to do! As such, I missed out on three of the films - And Now For Something Completely Different, Live At The Hollywood Bowl and The Meaning Of Life - plus the series itself as mentioned before. I feel like I should cover these off for completeness (look, if you haven’t worked out I’m a slightly obsessive collector type by now, you clearly haven’t been paying proper attention) so maybe stay tuned for a brief addendum later on in the year (I’m about to launch myself fully into the London Film Festival 2019 so there’s your theme for the next month…).
In the meantime, this post will be going out on the eve of the 50th anniversary itself so happy anniversary for tomorrow, Python chaps, and thanks for the laughs.
Next up, we have a two part screening of just what it says on the tin - a number of sketches from other programmes featuring the Pythons as well as the odd corporate film, public service announcement and, to finish off each session, a selection of Michael Palin’s 8mm home movies with a specially recorded commentary by him.
One of highlights amongst these was, oddly enough, a corporate film for Guinness in which publicans are instructed on how best to pour a pint and keep your pumps clean. Palin and Jones featured in this one as competing landlords, Palin the unsuccessful one who was the butt of his customers jokes with Jones the adept publican showing Palin the ropes. It’s amusing stuff which then stops in the middle for a very earnest demonstration of pump cleaning and maintenance by Jones which I found oddly charming (especially as his character voice seems to slip slightly while he’s dispensing advice). There’s also a slightly risque undertone of Jones having an affair with Palin’s wife which seems surprising in a corporate film.
One element that was intriguing, if a little cringey, was a section from a John Cleese video promoting his company which provided corporate training videos. The clips from the training videos themselves were reasonably funny (more so than a normal training video definitely) but the wraparound presentation from Cleese explaining why humour was essential and why therefore his company was so great had an air of superiority about it that was a little off-putting.
Other fun clips included an item about a hoover from Braden’s Week (a forerunner to That’s Life) featuring quotes from John Cleese and an interruption from Graham Chapman’s military man, a promotional programme about the Guinness Book Of Records presented by Frank Muir and with sketches by Palin, Jones, Cleese and Connie Booth (and featuring heavy drinking of Guinness) and a recently rediscovered interview with Graham Chapman, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam. There’s a sense of fractiousness between them at this point - they’re asked about doing more shows and make noises about being up for it but it feels like the writing’s on the wall for Python as a group.
Each session concluded with a selection of home movies shot by Michael Palin. The first was behind the scenes of the location shoot for the Dennos Moore (“give me all your lupins”) sketch from the third series while the second showed the Pythons on holiday in Barbados writing the script for Life Of Brian followed up with them being on location in Tunisia filming the crowd for the “welease Woderick” scene. It was perfectly charming listening to Palin’s reminisces over the footage (along with apologies for the lack of focus on any close ups) and the ideal way to cap off these screenings of odds and sods.
As we’ve seen with Rutland Weekend Television and The Rutles, the individual Pythons were keen to cash in on the ability that fame had bought them to pursue individual(ish) careers. While they had started to explore a life on the big screen, they were still drawn back to the lure of the small screen. The mid-70s saw Cleese, Palin, Jones and Chapman all embark on projects that were to achieve varying degrees of success.
Fawlty Towers
Episode shown:- Basil The Rat
As we all know, of all the post-Python projects, this was by far the most successful. It’s a very clear example of what makes a sitcom successful and, as I’ve probably bagned on about in the Comedy Archeology posts, that’s not necessarily the “sit”. What makes Fawlty Towers so enduringly popular are three main things - crystal clear characterisation, perfectly balanced performances and very funny dialogue. What is perhaps a little surprising when you try to step away from the familiarity and take a fresh look at it, is just how traditional in structure and format Fawlty Towers is as a sitcom given Cleese’s background in both cutting-edge satire and absurdist sketch comedy. It’s a studio-based, largely single set, old school sitcom. It’s the three aforementioned elements that lift it out of that traditional mold. John Cleese in particular gives a very heightened very physical performance (he uses almost his entire body much of the time) that marks this out as something other than the ordinary but praise also has to go to Prunella Scales, Connie Booth and Andrew Sachs who all know exactly what they’re doing here.
Ripping Yarns
Episode shown:- Tomkinson’s Schooldays
Another collaboration between Palin and Jones and shows their possibly conflicting affection for and disdain of traditional British stiff-upper-lip style adventure yarns. As will a lot of their stuff, it’s about puncturing the pomposity of those in positions of authority as well as introducing plenty of silliness to highlight the inherent silliness of the thing. All of those things are in fine evidence here - from the headmaster who insists on being thrashed by the boys through to the nailing of first years to the school walls and the official position of the School Bully. It also helps that a,ot of it was shot on location and on film, giving it more cinematic look (something that Jones and Palin were both keen on given that this was post-Holy Grail).
Out Of The Trees
Episode shown:- Pilot
Another of the BFI’s recoveries and very much one of the key missing links between the world of Python and another of my favourite comedy writers - Douglas Adams. This one-off pilot was presumed lost until a videotape copy made by Graham Chapman was discovered in 2005. The show itself was written by Chapman and Douglas Adams who had started working together on the fourth series of Monty Python after John Cleese’s departure*. It also features Simon Jones and Mark Wing-Davey who would go on to play Arthur Dent and Zaphod Beeblebrox respectively in the radio and TV versions of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy. It’s a fun enough show with some nice moments and an attempt to link it all together with some fourth-wall breaking characters but it doesn't quite hit the heights. It may have done given time but, apart from some additional scripts being written, it never progressed past the pilot stage.
* Fun Fact:- Douglas Adams and Neil Innes are the only other people to be credited as writers across the four series of Monty Python outside of the main troupe.
