Well after a long hiatus for flue, house moving and various other things you're not interested in, I'm back with a review of Michael Cain's latest effort: Harry Brown.
Harry Brown has been described to me as 'The British Gran Torino'. And that's a fair statement, as far as the general idea goes: Old bloke fed up with living amongst scum bags decides to take matters into his own hands. I found it similar in another way: Eastwood was basically playing Dirty-Harry-grown-old, Cain is basically playing Get Carter grown-old. Just imagine that Carter fell in love, got married and mellowed into a respectable old geezer with a past. Oh, and swap gangster for marine, and you get Harry Brown (the person). Throw in a hefty dose of Class of 1984 style 'they're nothing but animals and they're gonna kill us all' youth-phobia, and you get Harry Brown (the movie).
Let's get this bit out of the way now: did I like it? Erm, no. It was well made for the most part, stylish, moody and even a bit clever. But ultimately it left a horrible taste in my mouth. I know it is supposed to be gritty, and not Disney, but the same is true for Taxi Driver. The difference being that somehow Taxi Driver has some sort of merit and Harry Brown doesn't. Why is that?
Well, it's the same problem I had with Inglorious Bastards. I don't mind watching a bit of nastiness. I don't mind being visually assaulted by people doing horrible things to each other, whether it's realistic or obvious fantasy - providing it has a point. I can watch people be butchered in Schindler's List, I can watch Jason chase teenage girls with a great big fuck-off knife. In each of those cases respectively, I feel that the film has some sort of social message and is exploring a deeper issue, or that the film is purely a bit of fun.
My problem with films like Inglorious and Brown, is that they can't seem to distinguish between the two. Harry Brown follows in the wake of vigilante films like Deathwish, in as much as it is ultimately a hollow and fruitless playing-out of repressed right-wing fantasies. People may claim it's cathartic, but a catharsis leaves you purged, this type of blood-baying simply leaves you more frustrated and fearful. But in truth, regardless of how liberal we might consider ourselves, those of us who live in a modern city have all wanted to shoot a nasty piece of work in the head at some time or another. However this film tries to be a social commentary, when in fact it is simple exploitation. And therein lies the problem, and in my opinion, a dangerous one. Why is it dangerous? The film goes to great lengths to create a sense of realism, and does an excellent job at it too. So when I watch feral teens gun down a young mother in front of her baby whilst filming on their phone, it is very hard-hitting, and I know this kind of thing does happen. So in that case I damn well hope the subject is being taken seriously. But it isn't, it's just being used as scenery in what is at the end of the day a shallow excuse to watch some hoodies being shot.
Which takes me to my next point. I am completely willing to accept the the film is 'heightened realism' and that it takes place in a world only slightly worse than our own. It did remind me very much of Class of 1984, in as much as although the film is presumably set in approximately the present day (we are never told), we get the impression it is perhaps a couple of years hence, when violence on our streets has reached a new level. But my problem really is that most of the supporting characters, and particularly the teenagers, are very one dimensional (of course they are, this is just an exploitation film right? Right?), which means we end up with a bunch of very nasty for no good reason villains. In fact, there is not one single teenager in the film who isn't a thug. Not one. Not one is remorseful or capable of redemption. Not one elicits any sympathy from us whatsoever. The closest thing we get to a sympathetic character is Marky, who is the only one who shows signs of folding under questioning by the police, but the suggestion is that this is down to cowardice, not remorse. He is sexually abused by his step father, but we don't really care, and neither does Harry. Even though he did not take part in a stabbing himself, he did decide to film it on his phone for prosperity, and so he is summarily shot. Ultimately, we have no idea why these kids behave the way they do, what they might want, what motivates them, or what might save them, and frankly the film has no desire to find out.
I actually found myself wondering why on earth any of these young actors would agree to play a part in this hideous portrayal of teenagers. I will be annoyed if there isn't some sort of outrage at their portrayal - if there's something that gets my goat it's that young adults seem to be the only group you can discriminate against. Would this film even get made if it's main villains were gay, black, Muslim? Of course not. Hoodies? Who's going to defend them? They're not really even a part of society are they? Do we think scaremongering like this will make them feel less disenfranchised, disconnected, abandoned? And what is quite heart breaking, is that many of these actors put in a sterling performance. Characterisation (as opposed to character) is excellent, these people have either spent a lot of time amongst the youths they are supposedly portraying, or they have studied them well.
The film also has problems with tone, which is a result of not knowing its true genre. As mentioned, the majority of the film aims for gritty, close-to-home realism. But in a sequence when Harry decides to buy a gun form two drug dealers, we are led into a surreal world that belongs in a different film. The dealer is a comic book villain, and there are attempts at comedy in what is a depression inducing scene. If that wasn't bad enough, this sequence is WAY too long. I can only stand watching puking, ODing women being raped for about 20 minutes or so before I start to feel funny. Call me old fashioned. But I get the distinct impression that the reason for the plodding of this scene is because it has a hell of a lot of work to do, and I'm not convinced that either the writer, director or actors know how to deal with it. It is a key scene in which Harry transforms from charming little old-Alfie, to mean old-Carter. Up until now he has been the image of respectable cardigan-wearing snugness. And in truth, although we have seen him lose his wife (not-unexpectedly, but to a long term illness) and his friend, I simply didn't believe it would be enough to change him in such an extreme way - just because he once served in Northern Ireland, this pensioner is now able to strong-arm gangs of youths in his black Crombie jacket like Shaft. It is the age old problem of character - is the change believable? The answer is no.
All in all, it's fallen between two stalls. If you want a good old fashion exploitation film; look elsewhere, this has too much social commentary in it. If you want a good social commentary; look elsewhere, this has too much exploitation in it.
There are few things that genuinely scare me, but the knowledge that there are people in this world, in my town (albeit very few), that will kill or seriously injure innocent passers by for no reason, is one of them. Everyone has that fear, it's ancient. The newspapers know that. They press those sensitive buttons to sell papers. But newspapers are easily dismissed. Films like this tug on those fears for entertainment, and have a much more devestating affect on us.
That's not on.
I came away feeling like I'd shot my dog for amusement.
Tuesday 10 November 2009
Thursday 15 October 2009
Why Die Hard is great, and Austin Powers is funny
After reading a fairly mundane script the other day, I started musing about that old saying (was it Robert McKee? Or has he just purloined it?) that good stories are about 'ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances'. That's nice. It's pithy, it's succinct, in fact it's been pared down so much that it doesn't really mean a lot.
And so it's never really helped me much, or even sauntered around in my brain. Until I read that rather tame 'thriller' script. I got to thinking about the definition of a thriller. Generally it involves someone (or a small group) isolated, either physically (i.e. Alien) or non physically (sociologically etc., i.e. Cape Fear). It usually also involves a supremely powerful and/or clever villain, whom the weak and under-equipped hero has to outsmart, out fight and otherwise generally be very tenacious. What's the best example of this I can think of? Die Hard. Yes, it's an action film, it's the action film, but as you can see from the rules just mentioned, it's most definitely an action-thriller. And what do I love about Die Hard? What makes it stand out? A watershed in the Action genre? Radically (at the time) it's hero wasn't superhuman. Until then, action heroes had been giant walls of muscle. Rambo toted a machine gun in each had. He killed people by the score without even looking, meanwhile an entire army of sharpshooters couldn't seem to hit him.
Not so with John McClane. For a start he's not all that muscular, no more so than your average construction worker. And why should he be? He's only a policeman, since when are they built like brick...outdoor lavatories? Does he know martial arts? No. Is he well equipped? No. He doesn't even have any shoes. I LOVE that. Isn't that a stroke of genius? There's no logical reason for that to be a part of the story, but if you say the words Die Hard to me, what immediately comes to mind is - Bruce Willis, hand gun, vest, no shoes. Why does it work? Because it makes him more vulnerable, even less prepared, and in the slightly embarrassing situation of finding himself in the action-film equivalent of being caught with your pants down. (Incidentally, as a kid I always wanted to see an action film where the hero has a stinking cold. What a strange child I was.)
So what was my point again? It's that, although John McClane is still not exactly realistic (He just happens to know how to use explosives and submachine guns, just because he's a cop. And of course, he carries his hand gun with him at all times, even on his pre-9/11 flight from New York to LA, even when he's stripped to his waist and making fists with his toes.), on the action hero spectrum, he's most decidedly at the 'more realistic' end. He's alone, he's tired, he's scared. That's a new one. He spends the first part of the film running away, hiding, and trying to call for help. Wouldn't you? Exactly! That's what you or I might do (if we could even find the courage to do that). He's a (relatively) ordinary person in an extraordinary situation.
Ok, a change of tack. Now let's look at Austin Powers. Why? Well it's the exact opposite; extraordinary people in ordinary situations. That would make a thriller fall flat on its face, but it's gold-dust for comedy writers. Why is Doctor Evil funny? Because when he wants some frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads, he's told he can't have them because they're endangered, he'll have to make do with sea bass instead. When someone suggests he should just shoot Austin Powers, he says he would rather an elaborate, slow death, leaving ample time for escape, and he won't even watch, he's just going to assume everything went to plan. And his demand for one miiiiillion dollars gets laughed out of town, what a pitiful sum of money in the REAL world.
And then there's archetypes. Shadow, trickster, guardian. Those Jungian archetypes don't work as they are unless you're Tolkien or Disney. But for the rest of us, it works like this: take your (almost)realistic hero, and force him to play those roles. McClane is sometimes a trickster (Now I have a machine gun, Ho, Ho, Ho.... and don't forget him throwing the body out of the window onto Al Powell's car. Classic tricksterism!), sometimes a wise helper (Ellis, tell them you don't know me!), but mostly the hero (er...Yippee Ki-Yay?). So I suppose what I'm getting at here is that rather than populating your story with archetypal characters, try to invent some more realistic ones, and decide - What would they do if they had to be a helper, hero etc.
So, there's my brainwave for one day. A brainwave of stuff people have already told me admittedly, but that's often how my brainwaves work.
And so it's never really helped me much, or even sauntered around in my brain. Until I read that rather tame 'thriller' script. I got to thinking about the definition of a thriller. Generally it involves someone (or a small group) isolated, either physically (i.e. Alien) or non physically (sociologically etc., i.e. Cape Fear). It usually also involves a supremely powerful and/or clever villain, whom the weak and under-equipped hero has to outsmart, out fight and otherwise generally be very tenacious. What's the best example of this I can think of? Die Hard. Yes, it's an action film, it's the action film, but as you can see from the rules just mentioned, it's most definitely an action-thriller. And what do I love about Die Hard? What makes it stand out? A watershed in the Action genre? Radically (at the time) it's hero wasn't superhuman. Until then, action heroes had been giant walls of muscle. Rambo toted a machine gun in each had. He killed people by the score without even looking, meanwhile an entire army of sharpshooters couldn't seem to hit him.
Not so with John McClane. For a start he's not all that muscular, no more so than your average construction worker. And why should he be? He's only a policeman, since when are they built like brick...outdoor lavatories? Does he know martial arts? No. Is he well equipped? No. He doesn't even have any shoes. I LOVE that. Isn't that a stroke of genius? There's no logical reason for that to be a part of the story, but if you say the words Die Hard to me, what immediately comes to mind is - Bruce Willis, hand gun, vest, no shoes. Why does it work? Because it makes him more vulnerable, even less prepared, and in the slightly embarrassing situation of finding himself in the action-film equivalent of being caught with your pants down. (Incidentally, as a kid I always wanted to see an action film where the hero has a stinking cold. What a strange child I was.)
So what was my point again? It's that, although John McClane is still not exactly realistic (He just happens to know how to use explosives and submachine guns, just because he's a cop. And of course, he carries his hand gun with him at all times, even on his pre-9/11 flight from New York to LA, even when he's stripped to his waist and making fists with his toes.), on the action hero spectrum, he's most decidedly at the 'more realistic' end. He's alone, he's tired, he's scared. That's a new one. He spends the first part of the film running away, hiding, and trying to call for help. Wouldn't you? Exactly! That's what you or I might do (if we could even find the courage to do that). He's a (relatively) ordinary person in an extraordinary situation.
Ok, a change of tack. Now let's look at Austin Powers. Why? Well it's the exact opposite; extraordinary people in ordinary situations. That would make a thriller fall flat on its face, but it's gold-dust for comedy writers. Why is Doctor Evil funny? Because when he wants some frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads, he's told he can't have them because they're endangered, he'll have to make do with sea bass instead. When someone suggests he should just shoot Austin Powers, he says he would rather an elaborate, slow death, leaving ample time for escape, and he won't even watch, he's just going to assume everything went to plan. And his demand for one miiiiillion dollars gets laughed out of town, what a pitiful sum of money in the REAL world.
And then there's archetypes. Shadow, trickster, guardian. Those Jungian archetypes don't work as they are unless you're Tolkien or Disney. But for the rest of us, it works like this: take your (almost)realistic hero, and force him to play those roles. McClane is sometimes a trickster (Now I have a machine gun, Ho, Ho, Ho.... and don't forget him throwing the body out of the window onto Al Powell's car. Classic tricksterism!), sometimes a wise helper (Ellis, tell them you don't know me!), but mostly the hero (er...Yippee Ki-Yay?). So I suppose what I'm getting at here is that rather than populating your story with archetypal characters, try to invent some more realistic ones, and decide - What would they do if they had to be a helper, hero etc.
So, there's my brainwave for one day. A brainwave of stuff people have already told me admittedly, but that's often how my brainwaves work.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
To be a Script Reader
Welcome to Jon McGuffin's very first post. I am a would-be screenwriter and script reader in the UK.
I have been circling the idea of becoming a screenwriter, like a rather timid great white, for some time now. But the time has come, I've come out of the closet, I've sat my family down and said 'Mum, Dad, I think I want to be a writer' (That's a metaphor, I haven't spoken to my Dad in years!). And do you know what, that was bloody hard! I hadn't realised that, for me, the first step to becoming a writer was not, as everyone will tell you, to start writing (that's the second step), but to admit to myself that that's what I wanted to be, and that it was ok to want to be it. Hailing from a family of carpenters, brick layers and plumbers, I first had to admit that it's ok, it's perfectly allowable, it is a job.
But guess what? As far as being a job goes, you need to do all the work up front, and get paid (maybe) later. Like so many other would-be writers, I need to eat in the meantime, plus I'm already in debt from gaining a rather useless Film Studies degree. On top of that - I've always been of the opinion that most people only have a certain amount of 'rubbish job years', and I'm well past my quota. It's different for everyone, but each person only has a finite amount of time they can do menial, soul destroying, dead end jobs before they start to cry themselves to sleep or seriously consider buying an ice cream van and moving to Clacton. And when that happens, just my opinion, but I reckon it's time to look for a new job. One you might actually want to do.
So, here I am. Part time job that I hate just as much as when I was full time. Not much writing done (I claim that I'm still in training). No money coming in. I needed work that was in my chosen field, might be an opportunity to learn, and that I could do at home in my own time. Script reading beckoned.
I took a course at the Script Factory in Soho. It was very good, I highly recommend it, but it cost me my last £300. I thought it would be ok as I'd be making money back from it. Lets hope so. Next step, I got the Filmmakers' Year book from Amazon.co.uk (like the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook, but for Filmmakers, duh!). I went through it and parsed out the email addresses of anyone and everyone I thought might need a reader. Agents, production companies, distributors, you name it. How did I get on? I'll tell you another time!
I intend to start a regular blog on the whole process, because there's not much out there on the subject. I am hoping to pool some resources together and share them with you, any help from other readers welcome, any encouragement from anyone welcome, and who knows, this might be the start of a beautiful friendship (or online resource for people wanting to be script readers, if you prefer).
If you'd like more info try:
http://www.scriptfactory.co.uk/
Danny Stack's excellent blog http://www.dannystack.blogspot.com/
I have been circling the idea of becoming a screenwriter, like a rather timid great white, for some time now. But the time has come, I've come out of the closet, I've sat my family down and said 'Mum, Dad, I think I want to be a writer' (That's a metaphor, I haven't spoken to my Dad in years!). And do you know what, that was bloody hard! I hadn't realised that, for me, the first step to becoming a writer was not, as everyone will tell you, to start writing (that's the second step), but to admit to myself that that's what I wanted to be, and that it was ok to want to be it. Hailing from a family of carpenters, brick layers and plumbers, I first had to admit that it's ok, it's perfectly allowable, it is a job.
But guess what? As far as being a job goes, you need to do all the work up front, and get paid (maybe) later. Like so many other would-be writers, I need to eat in the meantime, plus I'm already in debt from gaining a rather useless Film Studies degree. On top of that - I've always been of the opinion that most people only have a certain amount of 'rubbish job years', and I'm well past my quota. It's different for everyone, but each person only has a finite amount of time they can do menial, soul destroying, dead end jobs before they start to cry themselves to sleep or seriously consider buying an ice cream van and moving to Clacton. And when that happens, just my opinion, but I reckon it's time to look for a new job. One you might actually want to do.
So, here I am. Part time job that I hate just as much as when I was full time. Not much writing done (I claim that I'm still in training). No money coming in. I needed work that was in my chosen field, might be an opportunity to learn, and that I could do at home in my own time. Script reading beckoned.
I took a course at the Script Factory in Soho. It was very good, I highly recommend it, but it cost me my last £300. I thought it would be ok as I'd be making money back from it. Lets hope so. Next step, I got the Filmmakers' Year book from Amazon.co.uk (like the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook, but for Filmmakers, duh!). I went through it and parsed out the email addresses of anyone and everyone I thought might need a reader. Agents, production companies, distributors, you name it. How did I get on? I'll tell you another time!
I intend to start a regular blog on the whole process, because there's not much out there on the subject. I am hoping to pool some resources together and share them with you, any help from other readers welcome, any encouragement from anyone welcome, and who knows, this might be the start of a beautiful friendship (or online resource for people wanting to be script readers, if you prefer).
If you'd like more info try:
http://www.scriptfactory.co.uk/
Danny Stack's excellent blog http://www.dannystack.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)