Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Tomas Alfredson’s sombre and quietly thrilling adaptation of the classic John Le Carre novel not only works as a great spy film, delving into the nitty-gritty of the mundane, everyday paranoia that comes with the job, but also a wonderful throwback to classic 70s cinema. Its period stylings not so much an affectation as a key component in the mood of the piece, and so convincing that, were it not full of recognisable modern acting talent, this could have been passed off as a recently uncovered gem from the heyday of these sorts of quiet, political character-based thrillers like The Conversation or All the President’s Men (not that TTSS is especially concerned with politics, but it shares much of its DNA with films that typically skew that way).

Set in the upper echelons of the British intelligence services the film deals with the hunt for a supposed Russian mole amongst its top agents, a cause that drives George Smiley (a wonderfully restrained Gary Oldman) out of retirement and back into 'the Circus' to untangle the mess left since the departure of the head of the agency (aka Control played with John Hurt’s usual gravitas and world-weariness) and death of one of its agents (Mark Strong) in Budapest. It is not an especially complicated plot but the film approaches it with a cool efficiency, expecting you to keep up and barely wasting a word in exposition. As such it is a film that rewards a sort of fastidious attention to detail with every shot, action and word carrying extra weight. It is a true masterclass in execution, balancing out its minimalist ambitions with gorgeous cinematography and atmosphere, the score by Alberto Iglesias bubbles along, underscoring the tension and mood and enhancing the films oppressive feel.

The cast is superb throughout, from Oldman’s commanding central performance, his Smiley reveals nothing, he remains as inscrutable at the story’s conclusion as at its start and yet he remains compelling because he has so much going on behind his calm exterior. A rare animated moment sees him re-enact an encounter with Karla, one of the most renowned Russian agents and it’s a captivating scene, played solely against himself. He gets great support from Benedict Cumberbatch as his man on the inside and Tom Hardy as a rogue agent with important information who requires protection. The great work done by the cast help elevate what could be seen as a somewhat distant and dry story into something more urgent and human. These are not James Bond-esque spies but normal, flawed people trying to make a living, never sure of their actions or their information. The period setting helps it avoid much of the gadgetry that is so prevalent in modern spy tales and allowed the film to focus on the characters, and the whodunit aspect of the plot.

In fact if there is a complaint to be made it is that the final reveal is a touch too restrained, observing the aftermath of the confrontation with a detachment that for the first time feels like the wrong choice. But as a whole the film is less concerned with ‘who’ than it is looking at the lives of these people that deal in secrets and lies, and the toll the work takes on them.

This is a wonderful film, mature, confident and engaging and an excellent foray into the world of American cinema from Alfredson. Between this and Let the Right One In he has me very excited now to see what he does next.

Why I Love: Parks and Recreation

So I'm back again, though with less of an extended absence as in the past. Gotta have some straws to clutch at, right? Anyway the usual apologies aside I've been thinking again about the blog and whilst I really enjoyed the challenge of using it a review hub for my film viewing, I feel now is a good time to expand it out again to cover any and all areas of interest. This should give me more variety in types of post and also more scope for articles. I still want to use this as an outlet for my critical thought or analysis, but also as maybe a way of bringing things to peoples attention. As such I like the idea of a regular (reasonably at least, we'll see how it works) series of articles that simply try and explain, and give me an outlet to gush, about things that I love. Be they films old or new, TV shows, books, music, it doesn't matter. But I think there is value in looking at something that you really connect with and trying to understand why, and then wanting others to hopefully have that same experience as well. One of the main reasons why I feel this urge to create as well in my own life is the idea of impacting people, in the way I have been impacted by other peoples creations in the past. 
.
So without further ado I'll step aside and get on with the article proper, this time about what is arguably my favourite show currently on TV and sadly, if you live in the UK, one that you might never have heard of: Parks and Recreation.

Set in the fictional small town of Pawnee, Parks and Rec (as it is commonly known) focuses on the life and work of the employees of the Parks department. It initially started in a similar vein to the US Office (and was created by some of that show’s writers) with Leslie Knope, the head of the department played by Amy Poehler, portayed as a Michael Scott type character, disillusioned and with ambitions way above her abilities and station. The early laughs coming from the seriousness and venerability with which she approached small town problems, and whilst there was something there, the show did little to distinguish itself. As a figure of fun Leslie was not very sympathetic and the awkward laughs very much fitted into the mould of The Office. But as the show’s short first season progressed (it was only 6 episodes due to the writers’ strike) things improved, the supporting cast were sketched out in more detail and the writers seemed to have a clearer vision of the show’s true identity.

Looking back now I can’t think of an occasion when the jump in quality from the early episodes to the later had such a steep increase, and that’s not to say that the first season is bad, because it’s not, and I would absolutely recommend starting there if you have never seen the show before. It sets up the world and characters, and as it’s so short as well there isn’t long before you see the changes start to happen. So much so that by the time we got into the middle of the 24 episode season 2 the show was transformed. Whilst it kept the mock documentary aesthetic its slightly sneering tone had gone, to be replaced with the show’s secret weapon: heart. Real affection and love for these characters and an understanding that what makes Leslie Knope great, and interesting and one of my favourite TV characters, is not her dilusion, but her ability. By turned Leslie from a figure of fun into someone actually good at her job, very good in fact, yet maintaining her sense of naiveté and ability to get carried away, they made her feel so much more real and endearing. It can be so easy in comedy to fall back on incompetence as the joke, to mock and ridicule. What I love so much about Parks and Rec, and what it came to figure out, was that it is much harder, but much more rewarding to make a comedy about people who are actually good at their jobs (for the most part) and warm and likeable people. Which brings me neatly to the show’s second secret weapon, its world building.

As well as Leslie you have a wonderful cast of characters just within the Parks Department, including arguably another candidate for best TV character in the departments’s stalwart, government-hating, all-American Ron Swanson, played to perfection by Nick Offerman. Again a character that started as a bit of a joke, a Government manager who hates the idea of government, has been fleshed out into so much more and one of the consistently funniest people on TV. And the office is full of people like this, from Aziz Ansari’s wannabe entrepreneur Tom Haverford to Aubrey Plaza’s wonderfully deadpan April to another of the funniest characters on TV in Chris Pratt’s Andy, another character who underwent major changes from the start of the series to become a surprise favourite. It is remarkable how well the show not only figured out its message and tone, but also its characters. It treats them with respect and as well as being silly, absurd and very funny it makes you care about them too. It is common in sitcoms to have an ‘emotional’ bit at the end of an episode to round things off and add some weight to the proceedings, but here, as with Scrubs (the only other show to really do this as effectively), it always feels genuine and earned, and not just a template that has to be adhered to.

This attention to character even extends to the wider town of Pawnee as well, over the course of the show’s four seasons they have built up a fantastic cast of bit-characters and references that make it all feel bigger than just the Parks office. Some have compared it to the Simpsons in this regard and I can fully understand that comparison, and the fact that long time Simpsons vet Mike Scully has been heavily involved in the show is no coincidence I’m sure.

Ultimately though, none of these elements, on their own or together, are truly unique to Parks and Rec, and they don’t guarantee success either. But the show is more than the sum of its parts, it manages a tricky balancing act of all these elements whilst still remaining laugh out loud funny on such a consistent basis. It is a show that I can watch each week with a big stupid grin on my face and no other program I can think of at the moment, even Community or 30 Rock, can match Parks and Rec for the mix of heart, character and laughs. Those other shows may have bigger laughs sometimes, or stronger set-pieces, but ultimately if I was presented with a brand new episode of any show right now, it’s Parks and Rec I’d want to watch.

How well it works for you though is certainly a subjective thing, I have a real affection for anything that celebrates the good, and best in people and I think it’s this optimism that truly sets Parks and Rec aside, and what endears it to me in particular. It may have taken a little while to settle into its groove but it stands as a wonderful example of a show finding its voice and having the conviction to stick to it.

So that’s it for this entry, I thank you for indulging me, but as I mentioned I think it’s good sometimes to celebrate those things we love, and try to understand why they provoke the reaction they do. I have a few ideas about what I could next in this series so I hope to be back and posting again soon so I guess I’ll see you then.

The Long Goodbye (1973)

Robert Altman's take on the world of Raymond Chandlers's infamous detective Philip Marlowe is less an adaptation of his 1953 novel and more of a deconstruction of the genre as a whole, updating it to a (then) modern day setting and befitting it with Altman's typical disdain and derision of the wealthy and immoral, not to mention his shunning of typical Hollywood cliché.
.
Elliott Gould steps into the detective's shoes here, replacing the character's typically hard boiled edge with more of an affable detachment. He still drinks and smokes his way through the film, and is efficient enough to conduct his investigations into the apparent murder / suicide committed by one of his friends, but his laid back charm and bemusement ('it's alright with me' becomes something of a catchphrase of his directed at various people throughout the film) lend him distance in a very deliberate way.
.
As a piece of cinema the Long Goodbye is often very good, the problem though is that Altman can't help being Altman, he is seemingly unable to leave his stylistic tendencies to one side and just serve the story. He clearly here has little interest in the central mystery, instead devoted large portions of the film to slow moving conversational scenes, his love of dialogue and human behaviour here feels out of place at times and as such the film has no great sense of urgency. The detachment of Gould's Marlowe extends outwards as well, Altman's camera roams around the scenes, focusing on the details but languid, his trademark overlapping dialogue and use of diegetic sound take you out of the moment more often than they add to the film.
.
As a statement on the genre it might well work, snubbing its nose at the notions of honour and chivalry as usually portrayed. Here Marlowe is dogged and persistent, but there's little nobility about him especially at the end. As one of the police officers remarks early on, he's a wise-ass, but not the typically endearing kind. Here he exists to provoke and annoy, seemingly unflappable and desiring a quieter life that never quite finds him.
.
There is a lot of dissect and take away from The Long Goodbye, but it does also work on a surface level. It's just that a lot of the odd touches, the random acts of shocking violence, the cryptic dialogue and bizzare situations (a late film scene where a gangster forces all those in his office to strip, including a young and, at the time, unknown Arnold Schwarzenegger really stands out for this) detract from the story, rather than help it. Altman was a gifted film-maker with a very specific point of view and style, here it seems that this does more harm than good, by looking down on a genre he is simultaneously engaging in it rings as a hollow exercise and prevents the film from coming together as a coherent whole.

13 Assassins (2010)

Takashi Miike, best known for his prolific filmic output and over the top extreme violence (think Ichi the Killer or Audition) returns after a quiet few years with an unlikely venture, a classical and relatively sombre Samurai movie who’s poise and accomplished look are a reminder that under the gimmicks and gore Miike is a supremely talented director, here he tests his hands at an epic and largely succeeds.

.

Set in 1844 during a time of peace the film follows a disparate band of Samurai’s who find themselves with no real place in a world that is leaving behind the old ways and customs. They are drawn together in a mission to assassinate a high ranking official, the casually cruel and sadistic Lord Naritsugu (played with relish by Gorô Inagaki), a man who’s lack of conscience and desire for violence would doom Japan should he rise to power.

.

From this setup the film becomes a piece of two haves, the first slow and deliberate, putting the pieces of the plan together and spending some time with these characters, none of which are especially showy but who all feel honour bound by a common goal and shared spirit. The second half of the film in contrast is a bravado extended action sequence in a small village where the two sides have their showdown. It is as remarkably constructed and well paced an action scene as I’ve seen in a long time and is punctuated by creative choreography and character beats that stop it becoming tiring or repetitious.

.

Due to the number of character it is true that few are sketched all that clearly, one of the exceptions being Shinzaemon the leader of the assassins, a former royal guard who can no longer sit by in silence, the way he compiles his plans and executes on them reveal a man glad to have a purpose and give his life for a cause. A man reborn and it's a strong central performance that carries the film. Having a strong villain is another key reason why the film works so effectively, Lord Naritsugu's sadism is shown early on and he looms over the film as a force that must be stopped, adding urgency and weight to the assassins crusade.

.

The film is gorgeously shot throughout, Miike's camera is controlled and patient, the costumes, and sets are superb throughout effectively registering the time and place without drawing attention to it. In fact the film is noticeably restrained, especially at the start., Things do start to get pretty violent and gory late on, but again Miike isn't revelling in the violence and there is always a clear narrative through the action. It is really the final 45 minutes that pull the film together and help it stand out as one of the most enjoyable and well crafted Samurai films of recent years. There is a deeper emotional story here as well, but also a wonderfully entertaining series of set-pieces that really deliver on the film's slow build up. It is a film that should satisfy any fans of the genre, and also those who just want to see a historical epic told with sincerity and skill.

Arrietty (2010)

Studio Ghibli’s latest offering is another perfectly esoteric choice for the Japanese animation giants, an adaptation of Mary Norton’s the Borrowers, relocating the film but retaining much of its inherent conceits and characters whilst still allowing the studio’s prevalent themes to shine through. Miyazaki is only on script duty here, with former animator Hiromasa Yonebayashi in the directors chair, but Miyazaki’s fingerprints are all over the film from its environmentalist undercurrents to the small details that sell the world.

.

Story-wise we follow Arrietty the only daughter of a family of Borrowers living in a remote house in the countryside (the location remains ambiguous) where a sick boy is recuperating along with his aunt and her housekeeper. As usual with Studio Ghibli films the plot is less important than the characters and the ways in which they interact and grow. They are able to say so much with the smallest of gesture or detail that the miniature world of Arrietty and her parents is immediately understood and accepted. When they step outside into the wider world the sense of scale and sound design in particular is wonderful, with every practical detail considered as to how they must navigate the familiar but suddenly hostile and vertigo-inducing environments.

.

I have always appreciated how Miyazaki’s stories stray from the usual narrative conventions and this is true again here, later on a villain as such does appear (and played in a more threatening manner than often found in his films) but the threat never overwhelms the films themes and the poignant finale manages to be sweet without going where I expected it to.

.

So whilst it may lack some of the more inventive and fantastical elements of the best Studio Ghibli work Arrietty remains a wonderfully animated and highly enjoyable film. It is rich with character and style, its world both gentle and reassuring, a reminder once again that each film from this wonderful studio is a real gift to be treasured.