Rewind and Rewatch?

On Thursday night my fellow film blogger Andrew Jones Tweeted that he’d just enjoyed his fourth viewing of Thor (or should that be ‘Thor-th’). I was actually stunned by this. What was more surprising was that Andrew hadn’t liked the film at the first time of asking. Fair enough, as he explained to me, his second viewing was as part of a Marvel all-nighter which is what won him over and the subsequent times were on Blu-Ray. So there were reasons, but this still seemed odd to me. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Thor well enough; it was enjoyably silly stuff with a likable cast and some witty ideas. But, given the option, would I see it four times in the six or seven months it’s been out? Heck no.

But then I wouldn’t even watch some of my favourite films again, given the option. I stopped rewatching films about four or five years ago. Generally speaking that is. There’s always going to be an occasion when an old favourite comes on TV and I’ll watch with friends or family, but by and large, once is enough for me. Whilst some of my favourite films include the likes of City of God,Star Wars and Twelve Monkeys, I can honestly say I have no true intention of ever watching any of them again. My reasoning being that with so many films out there that I haven’t seen (and believe me, there are dozens and dozens of glaring omissions from my ‘seen it’ list – but that’s another discussion for another time), where do I find the time to rewatch ones I have?

As any sensible twenty-first century film blogging gentleman would do, I put the question to Twitter. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as I follow a lot of lovely fellow film-friendly folks, all of those who responded were very much in favour of the rewatch. My friend and filmmaker Daniel Johnsonwas first to respond to the following questions: “Rewatching films: who does it and why? When there are so many films out there to see, who has the time to rewatch stuff? Or am I alone in this?”

Although he told me that in his opinion, ninety-nine per cent of films are irrelevant, it wasn’t about numbers for Daniel, more about finding the films that resonate with him and rewatching them to gain a greater understanding of himself. He also said that, “I don’t love movies, I just love the movies that I love.” Another Daniel and self-confessed ‘occasional blogger’ Daniel W. ventured that frame of mind is important when watching a film and can be the cause of different reactions on repeated viewings. Daniel Johnson countered that whilst that was true to a point, truly great films capture you first time around no matter what. Dan W conceded that he couldn’t think of a film that he’d radically changed his opinion about second time around.

The other contributor to the conversation was freelance journalist Michael Ewins, who did admit to a drastic change of opinion about some films he’d watched second time around. He told me he rewatched films in order to pick up on subtleties a first viewing had not revealed. He also believes that as we get older, we get pickier as we fear our own mortality, which, though ‘a bit heavy’, I agreed with.

I enjoy a good conversation, be it spoken aloud or via Twitter and this one forced me to question my viewing habits and draw some conclusions about them. It may be rather self-aggrandising, but I don’t feel like there are a great many films I don’t fully understand on a first viewing. Less pompously, I can concede that perhaps my appreciation of cinema has not yet fully developed. Finally, it’s true that I do watch a lot of trashy films and all too frequently, intentionally. There’s nothing wrong with trashy films, I love ‘em, but I believe they’re counterproductive to fostering a culture of repeat viewing for me.

Of course, one thing everyone said was that it is after all, a personal choice how often you rewatch. The great thing about film is that you watch it on your own terms. But what are your thoughts on the matter?

One Day Review

David Nicholls’ One Day was easily my favourite book of the last year or two. I read it towards the end of last year and have since foisted it upon as many family and friends as possible. It has been my default birthday present for several people and probably will be for several more to come. So of course, when I heard about the inevitable film adaptation, I had the familiar feelings of excitement, hope and mild dread that anyone who has had a much-loved source text transferred to the big screen has felt.

Whilst one always finds oneself tempering the feelings of optimism about anticipated adaptations – you know it’s never going to be as good as the book/TV programme/comic/videogame/theme park ride – it is impossible not to get a little bit excited. Why is this? Why do we have a compulsion to see things translated into onto screen? It’s not like there’s any clamour for the latest novelisation of the latest blockbuster (incidentally, I saw the book of Cowboys and Aliens in WHSmiths today – that’s right, the book of the film of the graphic novel. I hear it’s going to tear up the charts). Of course, the reason film adaptations are produced is because there’s a built in audience that can be exploited for cold hard cash – but my real question is why do we want to see our books put on screen in the first instance?

I guess to answer the question personally; my interest is in seeing how other people have interpreted something I love. Did they have the same response to the material as I did? Did it evoke the same emotions and did the way events played out in my head reflect how it played out in theirs? I suppose it’s a social-communicative thing. Having studied Literature and Film for a year though, I can tell you that the fair way to approach adaptations is to judge each medium on its own merits. Just as you can’t compare tarantulas with ring-tailed lemurs, nor can you really compare books and films – they’re different beasts. That was the approach I took when watching One Day – not to compare it to the book, but to judge how good a film it is in its own right.

Anyway, enough waffle. Despite wanting to judge it on its own merits, I was encouraged to learn that the screenplay was written by Nicholls and that the film is directed by Lone Scherfig, whose previous feature, An Education, impressed me. The actors were more unknown qualities: Anne Hathaway is great, but could she do Yorkshire? As for Jim Sturgess, I wasn’t overly familiar with his work.

The story concerns Emma and Dexter, a pair who almost got together on the night of their graduation, but didn’t. Instead, they form a friendship and we are granted a glimpse into their lives every 15th of July from 1989 to 2011. As such, we don’t get a blow by blow account of their relationship, we see the parts in between, as Emma goes through a crappy job and a dead-end boyfriend and Dexter becomes a minor celebrity and endures tumultuous relationships with his parents and with his partner. Obviously they get together at some point, but that’s not really the point – One Day is more about the realities of relationships, the missed chances and wasted years, the minutiae of our protagonists’ lives.

What the film does well are the big emotional moments – there are several and most of them will no doubt leave all but the most stony-hearted sobbing wrecks. The talent behind and in front of the camera combine to make sure the key sequences make the maximum impact. Perhaps less well executed are the smaller details. The first few years flash by as the film races to get to the juicer parts of the story. A slowing of pace earlier on would have given the characters a little room to breathe and introduce themselves a little better. The actors acquit themselves well (as a Yorkshireman, I recognise that Hathaway’s much maligned accent isn’t as consistent as it should be, but was largely untroubled by this), with Sturgess doing particularly well in a complex part.

Of course, comparisons to the book are unfortunately inevitable. I don’t want to dwell too much, but I will say that by and large, it’s about as good an adaptation as one could reasonably expect. Nevertheless, I would fully recommend the film to all and sundry – ignore the girly marketing, the film speaks not only to both genders, but also to a broad age range: in a rather unusual turn of events, I was very kindly allowed to take both my mam and my granny to the screening. I can assure you that three generations of my family loved the film. You are unlikely to view anything else as equal parts funny, poignant, understated and utterly heart-breaking this year.

Tomorrow, When the War Began Review

The problem with the increasing quality of modern television is that it can make the movies look cheap. Big-budget programmes such as Lost or The Pacificlook pretty much like full-scale films, so when a film comes along with big ideas it wants to portray on a grand scale, it is not only competing with whatever else is in circulation in the multiplexes, but now also with what is being directly broadcast into viewer’s homes. And it’s this kind of comparison with show such as Lost, The Pacific or V that hampers the enjoyment of the grammatically awkward Tomorrow, When the War Began.

The film centres on a group of preposterously good-looking teenagers who take a camping trip in the Australian outback, whose main concern is getting their rocks off with each other. Upon their return to their homes, they discover Australia has been invaded by an unknown military force and are forced into hiding and guerrilla warfare. The de facto leader of the group, Ellie (Caitlin Stasey), narrates the action and one of the film’s focuses is on her transformation from average teen to Sarah Connor-like warrior woman.

The film is surprisingly enjoyable. Whilst the dialogue is occasionally dumb – thoughts and feelings are often articulated when they should be implied visually – and characters drawn perhaps more broadly than strictly necessary, the film is otherwise exciting, sometimes moving and not so wholly unrealistic as to mar one’s enjoyment. There are no real weak links in the young cast – indeed, you get the impression that they could be even more impressive with a slightly stronger script, especially Phoebe Tonkin as Fi – and Stasey is particularly impressive in her role and is, pleasingly, a great female character, with nuanced strengths and weaknesses. Deniz Akdeniz is also good as Homer, who transforms from rebellious troublemaker to gutsy freedom fighter. Subtle reflections on Australia’s racial prejudices are also welcome. The film occasionally flirts dangerously with cheesiness, but manages to avoid any major mistakes.

Director and script writer Stuart Beattie (who adapted the film from the source novel by John Marsden) handles the action impressively for his first foray behind a camera, mixing interesting shots, splendid vistas and special effects pyrotechnics strikingly. So far, then, so good. Where the film falters though, is in its somewhat rushed development of character – the teens’ characters change somewhat abruptly throughout the film. Kevin (Lincoln Lewis) switches from cowardly idiot to brave and noble soldier almost instantaneously; Robyn (Ashleigh Cummings) from pacifist to killer even more quickly. There are other examples too. Now sure, the surprise invasion obviously provokes the characters to grow up quickly, but one gets the impression that the source material would have handled these changes altogether more effectively than a hundred minute film. Which brings us to our original problem – would Tomorrow, When the War Began be better suited to television?

It certainly looks televisual – which is more a complement towards the rising production values of TV than a slur on the film – and it takes many of its cues from the aforementioned programmes (The Pacific’s tropical conflicts, Lost’s mixture of drama, action and character study and V’s invasion theme). Perhaps if it had been conceived as a television programme, it would have had the space to create the sprawling, involving drama it seems it would like to be. It’s a better than average, perhaps even great film, that just seems slightly restricted by its form. Established fans are unlikely to be troubled by this, however, and film is certain to attract many more devotees to the franchise. The now green-lit sequel will be met with even higher expectations and one would be disappointed if it didn’t live up to them.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 Review

The Harry Potter juggernaut begins to roll to the end of its journey. After six previous films that increased in both quality and darkness of tone in what is approaching ten years, Harry’s final adventure has been split into two parts in order to wrap up all the loose ends without omitting any key plot details. A cast which comprises of a veritable who’s who of British acting talent (and Helena Bonham Carter) bring JK Rowling’s final instalment to the screen.

Whilst clearly a decision that allows the franchise to maximise its profits, splitting the final book in two also gives the film some much needed breathing space. For those who don’t know, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 sees Harry’s arch nemesis Voldemort on the cusp of assuming power over the wizarding world. Harry, Ron and Hermione’s mentor, Professor Dumbledore is dead, they can trust no one and they have embarked on the mother of all skives off school. The only way to stop Voldemort’s ascension to power is to locate and destroy the seven ‘Horcruxes’ – objects that contain a fragment of the antagonist’s soul. Two have been previously located and dealt with, but the location of the remaining five is a mystery.

The film opens strongly, with Hermione and Harry parting ways with their respective families for what looks certain to be the last time. An aerial escape and dogfight follows, as Harry and his allies flee his childhood home with Vodemort’s Death Eaters in hot pursuit. An infiltration of the compromised Ministry of Magic – complete with 1984-esque anti-muggle propaganda – occurs soon after and proves to be a highlight of the film; a mixture of comedy, suspense, danger, intrigue and, as always, sumptuous production design.

The film’s momentum slows down for a while after this, as the trio winds up in a forest and spend a good chunk of the film simply pondering what to do next. Younger fans may get restless during this lengthy section, but I enjoyed the interactions between the heroes as their relationships become ever more fraught and tense. The three actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have all impressed and convinced in their roles, which they have all played with increased depth and subtlety over time. There are also some gorgeously filmed locations during this extended sequence and the trio’s feelings of aimlessness and isolation is well captured.

The film demands quite a lot of its viewers: old characters return frequently and you will be expected to remember who did what and why it was significant on several occasions; those not wholly versed in Potter lore may find themselves out of their depth at times. Ultimately the film is a victim of its structure – despite the added room to manoeuvre and its already bloated two and a half hour plus run time, like many penultimate chapters in film franchises, it cannot help but feel incomplete. However, it is a testament to the appeal of the story, characters and world that director David Yates has brought to screen that we are left wanting more by the final reel. Part 2 cannot arrive soon enough.