Tuesday

Last night I saw Her Naked Skin, showing at the National Theatre. My first problem comes when I attempt to tell you what the play was about. This normally simple task reveals one of the main flaws of this drama. It couldn't decide what it wanted to be about, and so ended up being about nothing. The background was the suffragette movement of the early twentieth century, and the foreground involved two women falling in love. If the play had been about either one of these things alone, it might have succeeded. After all, the acting was superb, and much of the dialogue excellent. But there was no one drive, or focus, to the narrative. I didn't feel pulled along in any way, either through sympathy or hatred towards any of the characters. The first half was composed of many short scenes, with many characters, leaving the audience confused. I felt indeed that it was a play that wanted to be a film. The second half contained much longer, intense scenes, that worked better, but surely they should have come in the first half when the audience had more patience? Whatever the outcome of this pacing, the play didn't work for me, and it also didn't work on the stage itself. Although the set design was intriguing, it couldn't fill the (admittedly large) stage. There were always large empty spaces that distracted your attention when the actors couldn't keep it - which unfortunately was quite often. You may or may not know that this is the first play by a female writer to be on the main stage at the National Theatre. I couldn't help thinking that if you wanted to show the brilliance of female writers, you would want to show that they can write about any topic or theme. By putting on a play about lesbian feminists they help to stereotype themselves.

Saturday

Possibly the strangest film you'll ever see is Lars and the Real Girl. It stars Ryan Gosling as a lonely man who buys a sex doll and presents her (he calls her Bianca) to his family, friends, work colleagues, and neighbours as his girlfriend. The doctor says he is suffering from a delusion, and suggests that everybody in the town should pretend she is real. They do so. What is incredible from the writer, director and actors is the ability to maintain sincerity in what is obviously a ludicrous (but I'm guessing plausible) scenario. Overall, though, the film is a bit twee, and the ending predictable from halfway through, but there is something so unsettling about it that you won't be able to get it out of your mind. The performance of Gosling, above everyone is outstanding, he makes you believe, and perhaps in someone else's hands this might have been a farce. I have a feeling that if, or when, Gosling becomes a superstar this film will be remembered only as one of his 'early, weird movies', but one that made directors and producers notice him. I have a theory that the film can be read psychologically: we are only what everyone thinks of us. Perhaps this isn't suggested by the script, but it's an interesting angle. Undoubtedly you have to see this film, whether you'll like it or not is a different matter.

Tuesday

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie Cloverfield. I'll post a fuller review later for those of you who think you might watch it. If you're undecided, I should just say that it is a great monster movie, definitely worth watching. So, this post remains for those of you who have seen the film, or know you never will. Near the end, the character who has been holding the camera throughout dies. In his commentary to the DVD, the director Matt Reeves says that this is a great and exciting shock to all monster movie fans. It's as if Sam Neill had died at the end of Jurassic Park, or Matthew Broderick in Godzilla. Or is it? Throughout the film the man holding the camera is distanced from us. In fact, we don't begin with him at all. He is thrust on us after five minutes. From the start, he is a comic character, clearly not a main participator. We are shown his weaknesses and failings. He's not involved in decision making. When we see it from this point of view, we realise the director has not been shocking at all when he kills this character at the end. The director has been quite traditional. Remember the rules of the horror genre set out in Scream? If you have sex, you're going to die, only virgins survive. In less crude terms, what this means is that flawed characters will not survive, or at least characters with flaws that are not redeemable. Main characters are usually flawed, but their flaws are forgivable. In Scream, Sidney has sex, but she was tricked into it, she went into it with honest intentions, and so she survives. Both Scream and Cloverfield, whilst pretending to subvert the rules of their genres, in fact maintain them.

Friday

If you loved the previous movies of Wes Anderson, then no doubt you'll love The Darjeeling Limited. It contains all of his, now trademark, stylised camera movements, music, creative set design and dry sense of humour. What happens, however, if you've never seen or liked his films? I have to say that you probably won't like this one. There is not much direction, or drive, to the narrative, and little real interest in the characters. Instead of smiling when you recognise a deliberately unsteady zoom-in, you'll probably feel disconcerted. Wes Anderson has created a world for himself that he might find it difficult to get out of. Nonetheless, as I said, I still loved this film and would happily watch it again. Something should be said, however, about the short film Hotel Chevalier, which prefaces the main movie. It contains one of the characters, and some minor plot points that will reappear later, though that doesn't make it necessary. I read one review that said they preferred the short to the long film. I can't agree. I was left amused, but generally not intrigued by it. Natalie Portman just isn't a good actress, I don't think. So, I would suggest renting if not buying this movie for Anderson fans, but then they knew that already; anyone else should be cautious.

Sunday

You, like me, might have never watched Cocktail. It is one of those films that you either saw at the time, and continue to see, or you didn't, and never will. Unless, of course, you were too young or even (you won't believe it, but apparently this is true for some people) weren't born by then. I myself was nine years old when Cocktail came out in 1988. The impression I gained from other people and popular opinion was that this was a 'fun' movie. When I watched it recently, I found it quite harrowing. Did you know this film was based on a book? I think you can tell - it definitely seems to skip large periods of time where a lot of emotional development has occurred. Big events happen, but they aren't prepared for, or their consequences aren't fully appreciated. Anyway, I'm being too fussy. This movie is fun. Tom Cruise is incredibly young, energetic and exciting to watch. The soundtrack is cheesy (now), but enjoyable nonetheless, and they make cocktails and recite bartender poems. I was surprised by the seriousness of some of the things that happen, but maybe that's because I'm so used to our anaesthetic modern blockbusters? There is something slightly dangerous about 80's cinema, beneath its upbeat surface, that perhaps needs further examination.

Friday

I apologise for one more not directly cinema related post. I will get back to reviewing movies soon. Yesterday David Cameron said something that somewhat startled me. I wonder if you'll agree. Criticising Gordon Brown about the recent 42-day detention vote, Cameron said something like 'we're not here to do what's popular, but to do what's right'. Of course, I agree that the popular option is very often, if not always, the wrong one, but then I haven't been elected to government by a popular vote. Isn't it an MP's job to do what the majority of his constituents want? Or does he sometimes have to go against what they want because he believes they'll thank him later? He can't ask them to vote every time he has to make a decision. They elected him because they trust him to do what they want, don't they? I've always been puzzled by exactly how this reciprocal relationship worked, and David Cameron has muddied the waters considerably.

Wednesday

I get immensely annoyed by the attitude of the UK terrestrial channels in their coverage of major sports events. At the moment, both ITV and BBC share the Euro 2008 games. However, you'll never hear one channel mention that the other one shows the matches they can't. It's not as if they're offering competing coverage - all they can manage is a highlights show later in the day, and that, according to them, is all that exists of the game. It infuriates me that the channels can't see that we, as viewers, are interested in the sport first, before any channel loyalty (which I don't have anyway). It gets worse when the BBC news will, after reporting on the latest action in Formula 1, recommend you listen to the race on radio. Why would I do that when the ITV broadcast it live on television? I understand that the other channel will not shut down when there are events on they can't cover - they put on shows that they want us to watch, and value their ratings greedily - but it seems such narrow-mindedness, and every intentional silence still staggers me.