The Class directed by Ilmar Raag – A Film Review

In drama, it is very rare for myself to come across a piece that attempts to tell a story in the social realist manner that seems to go too far, The Class (2007) went too far. Although it is important to be free to discuss the issues and social injustices in our society, (especially when children are concerned) if a subject is pushed beyond even the most extreme cases of reality it inherently takes away any emotional impact or serious message a work of this sort may wish to convey.

As I have said, the film goes too far. It is a story about teenage bullying in a high school but comes across as a group of sociopaths partaking in or at the least tolerating the events that go far beyond that of which any mentally stable person would allow to happen.

The story begins with a boy Joosep playing basketball with the rest of the class. As the story progresses we discover that he is actually being bullied by the rest of the pupils – not just some of his class members, but practically all of them. Some of them are violent, others are verbally abusive and the rest remain socially intolerant to Joosep. Yet one day, one of the others (Kaspar) thinks that things might be going to far and interferes. Rather than causing the others to reflect on their behaviour however, this instead adversely splits the group hatred between Joosep and Kasper. Unlike before, the group bullying fitfully intensifies to an unbelievable degree.

It is easy to see that the film is an attempt to examine the group behaviour surrounding an incident of school bullying. It's an exercise of sorts, a kind of deconstruction of what kind of behaviour may cause a couple of students to go on a school shooting. The problem is though that the events that lead up to Kasper and Joosep reaching their breaking point seems too unrealistic and extreme to have ever been reached by a group of students. As you watch the events unfold one after the other it just becomes to fantastical for these events to have possibly happened in the time the film pretends they preceded one another. Why would none of the student’s question what is going on? Why is it that only Kasper attempts to stop what is going on? And why is it that none of the teachers are informed of what is really happening?

The only way these events would happen as the film states is if the students were a large combination of psycho and sociopaths who were mentally unstable and apathetic to the bullying and subsequent torture of others before their very eyes. The point being that the events as they are portrayed are unbelievable; taking away from much of the emotional impact that such a film could potentially have had.

That is not to say that the film doesn’t have its strengths. The acting is astonishing considering the young age of much of the cast and the subject matter. Direction in the film is also well handled, with a really intense progression in the atmosphere building throughout. It is through these aspects I believe that many other critics have misread the film as one that is intensely gritty and truthful to its subject matter. However for a film to be any of these things it must refrain from exaggeration or over enveloping the actions of its characters. The Class unfortunately doesn’t have enough restraint in these areas to be any of these things.

If you were to compare it to the likes of Gus Van Sant’s Elephant (2003) with it’s loose narrative around a similar school shooting in the US, you will see how it never attempts to explain the actions of the shooters. Instead of this it focuses on numerous characters in the school during the day of the shootings. Because of this, we as an audience are left to speculate what has happened and why. Like The Class, Elephant questions what has happened and why such shootings would occur. Yet, unlike The Class this is achieved without resulting to tabloid like speculation and to an extent, exploitation of the real tragedies that have occurred.

Nevertheless the film does have heart. Although the antagonistic class are often left under developed, the characters of Joosep and Kasper do by the end of the film feel like real people. In scenes between the two of them you get to learn of their lives, their dreams and more importantly their sense of the situation. Throughout the film they’re constantly thinking over the actions of the others and the way they react to them. In the process you really get a sense of who they are as people and what the future could hold for them if things were better for them. But even as this happens and things take a turn for the worst, even at the point of deciding to go on a killing spree against those who have effectively tortured them, you almost agree with them and their choice of action. The problem is that if the antagonistic bullies were developed on any kind of realistic level (as opposed to being varied combinations of apathetic, psychotic and sociopathic beings) then we would never agree as an audience member to the killing of children in a mass shooting. The truth is that these characters don’t come across as real people; instead they’re evil caricatures.

It’s quite ironic in a way really, as the film is almost a complete twist on the right wing tabloid portrayals of such events. Instead it is the victims of a mass shooting that are demonised and the killers themselves who are presented as the humanised victims.

Nonetheless, even with these faults I still believe the film is worth a watch. It is rare to see a film take a subject such as this and attempt to examine how the situation of a school shooting may come about. Although it does come across as eccentric in it’s presentation of these developing events, the actual protagonists character development takes a rather subtle tone. I don’t believe that the film was successful under the merits that it aimed for in it’s extention towards realism, however I do think that what it failed at shouldn’t be a deterrent to anyone thinking about viewing the film for the first time. My criticism here would most likely split opinion – so don't allow my biasis to sway your opinion and give this film a watch for yourself.

Night of the living dead directed by George A. Romero – A Film Review

Few films can be said to be truly influential, never mind influencing the creation of a whole new film subgenre. George Romero’s 1968 classic stands up even to this day as a gritty and wildly inventive horror movie. Even now others still hold a debt of gratitude to this work including such acclaimed works as Edgar Wright’s Shaun Of The Dead (2004), or even the Robert Kirkman comic series The Walking Dead (2003 – present) and it’s subsequent television adaption (2010- present) of the same name.

Overall, Night of the Living Dead has quite a simplistic plot really. The story follows a young woman visiting the grave of her father with her brother. However when they are mysteriously attacked in the cemetery, Barbra is forced to flee on her own. Eventually she stops at an old farmhouse, which seems abandoned. There she meets a group of survivors who are eventually trapped by a group of creatures outside and they attempt to think of ways to escape.

With the zombies aside, the film in its execution of exposition and character development is in fact rather subtle. The acting is held back and realistic with characters carefully assessing their situation. There is no over the top screaming or shouting that seems out of place. Yet even though there is one point where the character of Barbra is in a state of shock because her brother is missing that borders on being hammy, in reflection, considering what is going on she would be perfectly entitled to be in such a state of hysteria.

Another important thing to mention is how such small developments really help the film. The news reports that the characters watch on television are serious and have an unexpected feeling of realism to them. The images of the rednecks walking across the country in vast groups speak well to the reality of American gun culture. The point being that it makes you believe and invest in what it’s trying to show you through it’s references to the real world and how such a horror may be dealt with in reality.

With this it is also important to mention that the creatures themselves have a certain nightmarish quality to them. Zombies are the animated bodies of the dead that feed on the living. They walk and stumble in a manner that taken out of context could seem quite humorous, yet this is never the case. The reason being that no matter how slow they are, no matter how clumsy or irregular their movements may seem, they are always a threat to the protagonists.  It isn’t the way they look that is so frightening about the creatures in this horror film. There's no Frankenstein’s monster and at a distance they could be mistaken for humans (as they are in fact by Barbra and her brother early on in the movie). They are simply led by instinct, they have no thoughts or abilities to reason – they simply consume.

And above all that is what makes them so scary. Perhaps that is what makes the entire film so scary. There are no recognizable film stars here, no one to root for simply because of their name or face. This film is only characters and more to the point, people; regular people with families, a young couple and two other young adults alone in the group, and they have to come up solutions. Yet in the end it’s their petty squabbling that gets most of them killed. Selfish decisions combined with their unreasonable attitudes lead each of these characters to their fates.

The only figure here that could be described in any way as heroic is the African American character of Ben, but even a search and rescue party of rednecks shoots him in the end. Much has been made of this and it’s reference to American racisms at the time of the civil rights movement. As the same similarities were pointed out between the grotesque and gruesome images of the film and the news footage of the war in Vietnam – with both also being filmed in a similar rugged and granny black and white style. Whether these things were intentional conscious decisions or subconscious, or even coincidental is up for debate, but it is hard to deny these similarities.

Every time you go back to a work of art there is something that usually comes to mind and hits you in the same way that reminds you of your first viewing. That unique feeling that it gave and continues to give you that brings you back again and again. For me, that moment is the end of this film. When Ben is killed there is a powerful feeling of injustice. You really feel sickened by what has happened to a character that we have grown to care about. But it doesn’t stop there. We are then shown after his death the hideous treatment of his body as he is tossed around like a piece of furniture. All of this is done strangely enough through a series of stills, which really forces you as a viewer to pay attention to what is happening in front of you. Again, the stills in your mind give you another layer of realism where in which, if we can see these actions happening before us, then maybe it really did happen. Of course it didn’t, but in the same way a nightmare is horrifying whilst you are experiencing it, Night of the Living Dead brings about a similar emotional intensity in it’s viewer.

The 39 Steps directed by Alfred Hitchcock – A Film Review

Before his move to Hollywood, Alfred Hitchcock had already established himself as an internationally recognized filmmaker. Yet to this day, it seems often that his British films are over looked and swept aside in comparison to the critical acclaim presented to some of his American classics.

That is not to say that some of these films haven’t received venerable recognition. The 39 Steps (1935) for example is one of the films that is said to define his early career. Featuring many of the Hitchcock tropes: an innocent man accused of a crime he didn’t commit, running as he is perused by both the law and the criminal / criminals responsible. It is a suspense thriller in the sense of which Hitchcock was most known for. But how does it stand up in viewing today?

Well the story itself has aged well. The setup stands alone in a timeless way. Even though the crux of the story involves the selling of government information to international spies, the information is overall incidental. It is simply the McGuffin (a driving force that has very little meaning in relation to the overall story).

The presentation of the film does at times however feel dated. Shots often seem structured in a flat manner. Scenes transition over long fades and at times characters end their dialogue abruptly to advance the plot. In the end it gives the story a feeling of artifice that isn’t wanted or needed that really takes the audience out of the film at varying periods during their viewing.

Still the acting overall in the film is a good standout. Other than leading man Robert Donat who plays a Canadian with a London accent, (which is strange because the actor himself is from Manchester?) yet apart from this everyone at least gives a strong performance.

With these issues aside, the directing of the film definitely had hints to the abilities of its director. The final scene and an earlier scene in a hotel are certainly effective uses of suspense. These scenes are defiantly the strong point of Hitchcock’s direction and easily stand out as such. As he develops these set pieces he is able to craft scenes together in a very artistic and eloquent manner that does at times feel lacking in some of the quieter or even subtler moments. In scenes of heavy dialogue it almost seems as though the actions screech to a complete halt that provide lulls for the audience. The expository manner of these instances is something that brings the film down and is certainly improved on in his latter American works. 

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger – A Book Review

It’s a novel that has as many critics as plaudits, with a history of suggested inspiration and influence as murky and ostensibly questionable as the book itself. For some it is an exploration of teenage angst, others see it as a study of an outsider in the form of self-reflection. However, to others still it is a banal narcissistic interpretation of teen rebellion and pseudointellectual expression.

The story follows Holden Caulfield’s recount of the previous year and experience of being expelled from a prep school. Throughout the story we discover different aspects to the personality of this cynical teenager. He seems unable to settle into the constructs of social groups: rebelling against the conventions for little to no reason, with this being one of the main driving forces of the reader’s interests. We question his views and how he came to see the world in this way: as the protagonist does too at times throughout the novel.

It is easy to write off this story as a negative and un-relatable account of a privileged child rebelling against his position. But to say as much is to do the novel an injustice and an ignorance to the delicately laid information on the development of his behavior and the unconscious relation it has to events in his past. In the novel, Holden often discusses how he feels distance to his environment and in particular his teachers and peers. This distrust comes from what he describes as people acting or speaking of a subject in a “phony” way. It is however, not so much the people he comes into contact with that annoy him, it is furthermore the fact that he feels an obligation to mirror this behavior in order to maintain a regular exterior composure. In fact it is this psychological conflict, which often causes the problems for Holden. This can be seen in the novel when he states, “I am always saying "Glad to have met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met.”

Although this shows his rebellious attitude towards others it doesn’t necessarily explain where this reason of thinking comes from. It is at this point a lot of critics have inserted that the novel is aggressive against the banal. A false display of rebellion for the sake of it, because - why not? This unfortunately comes from a misreading of the book as the novel does, throughout, subtly hint at reasons for his abrasive behavior.

At points we are given small pieces of information on Holden’s past. We discover in this time that a few years ago his younger brother Allie died under unknown circumstances. When discovering this he smashed up his parent’s garage and is in the hospital during the funeral. There are certain hints that he has never been able to accept his brother’s death. An underlying anger seems to stem in his subconscious, laid out like a raw nerve. When talking to his younger sister Phoebe he lashes out when his brother is brought up, “I know he's dead! Don't you think I know that? I can still like him, though, can't I? Just because somebody's dead, you don't just stop liking them, for God's sake--especially if they were about a thousand times nicer than the people you know that're alive and all.”

There is a raw bitterness that he allows to slip here. A definite connection is hereby revealed that the death of his brother has a direct correlation to his opinions and cynicism towards others.

Other events have also affected his distrust of private schools and other institutions. There is a mention of a child at one point who was beaten to death by a group of other students in retaliation to an insult. The significance of this event sticks into the mind of Holden, as it was not only him that found the boy but also the fact that he was wearing a jumper of Holden’s. Not only does Holden not understand the brutality of this event, he is unable to justify the punishment of the school, which, rather than allowing their name to be mentioned in relation to such an incident in the press, chooses instead to simply expel those responsible.

Holden it seems is cut off from all those he loves. His family is all to some extent distanced from one another. His older brother D.B is a writer in Hollywood and his parents have sent him to numerous boarding schools. It appears that his main problems in life come from his suppression of emotional issues from his past. This built up anger seems then to stem from his lack of confrontation with these problems.

Towards the end of the novel at least he appears to recognize this. During a conversation with a former teacher of his Mr Antolini, he suggests to Holden that, “Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them—if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you.”

Overall I think this quote sums up the novel as a whole. This isn’t the story of a fantastical character, in fact at times he’s damn near unlikable. But the truth is the character himself recognizes this. Here we are faced with the story of a psychologically troubled teenager. Holden is in a state of transition and has reached a crossroads in his life. Yet, even towards the end of the story the way his life is going to turn out is kind of left vague. And to a degree, I believe it would be right to say that some people really don’t like this. The openness of the ending to some feels really off putting after reading through the novel. They can expect some kind of transition on a real visceral level however such an encompassing conclusion never comes. Instead what we are left with is more complex than that. To truly find the answer to what may happen to Holden you have to really look deeper at the text. In this you will see that Holden is in a state of transition. Within the context of this stories metanarrative, Holden may in fact be trying to throughout the writing and examination of his past be as Mr Antolini put it, keeping a record of his troubles in an attempt to learn from them.

All things considered, The Catcher in the Rye isn’t a novel about teen angst. Nor is it a sermon of the unmotivated. It is in fact a simple story, the story of a young man who causes his own problems and is in a not so direct manner, slowly attempting to correct his behavior. Whether the protagonist himself is likable or not is debatable, what isn’t nonetheless is the fact that the true connection to the novel comes from his attempts to deal with these issues - or as others may feel, a lack of such. 

Elephant directed by Alan Clarke – A Review

Alan Clarke (1935 - 1990) was a British television, film and theatre director known for his realist / minimalist style. His works tended to focus on the struggles of the working class and various social injustices from his borstal drama Scum (1977, and its remake in 1979), to Made in Britain (1982) and the focus of this review Elephant (1989).

Elephant focuses on “the troubles” of Northern Ireland by showing us a number of political assassinations without any preceding backstory. The made for television short stands out for its candid look at violence from an unbiased, yet voyeuristic perspective. We see victims; killers and bystanders pass through different scenes as an assassination comes to fruition. One after another the scenes seem to regurgitate with more and more violence, and as this happens, you begin to realise as a spectator a level of disgust and repulsion to these actions rising in you.

In each scene after a murder has taken place, the camera cuts back to the victim lay on the floor. Clarke in doing so is forcing his audience to look at the repercussions of these heinous actions. At the time of its production, people could talk about how they didn’t know what was really happening in Northern Ireland, however this film strips away the viewers silent spectatorship, forcing them (at least theoretically) to look upon these atrocities face to face.

No longer now a spectator, the viewer feels a strong compulsion for the violence to stop, yet it continues. The use of Steadicam here also adds to the piece as the audience follows the characters step for step. We are not at a distance through out the film, were practically within breathing space. In a way, from a craft perspective this really helps to bring the audience into this (what many would describe as a foreign) environment. If the piece had been filmed on tripod conventionally, we would be looking at things from a more safe and static on looking perspective. Yet as the camera moves on Steadicam we have a moving perspective, one that gives us a feel and investment in the environment around us. As the background moves around us it gives a more realistic feeling to the space. When background moves here there is a level of substance to it, a tangible element that gives it a more realistic feel. In contrast a still image highlights just the subject, which gives a level of theatricality about it: a highlight in a way that doesn’t come natural and at times may feel false or disjointed.

As the film comes to an end there is a certain level of relief. Although by this point the tension has reached such a height that there is no real feel of release at this conclusion. Instead what you're left with is an uncomfortable feeling that this was but a small dramatic portrayal of the real horrors that took place. This film without a doubt ousts a powerful message to the audience. The elephant in the room has now been acknowledged and is opened up to audience discussion.

Whilst as a political document it may be slightly dated today, as a film the work is still an outstanding piece and a stand out in the cannon of British films. In someone else’s hands, Elephant could have been a political drama that bared little relevance to the actual societal subject. But in the hands of Alan Clarke, the film remains to this day an influential piece of television. Going on in later years to inspire filmmakers of the like of Gus Van Sant: who latter went on to make his own Elephant (2003).

ParaNorman directed by Sam Fell and Chris Butler – A Film Review

In recent years Hollywood animated movies have began to experiment with more adult and grown up themes. No longer are they seen as simple entertainment aimed at keeping children quiet, but now aim to please across generations of the audience. Films like Shrek (2001) and Toy Story (1995) contained references in both the story and design in relation to their adult viewers. Yet even in these films at times, there seems to be a particular hyperactivity to the pace, a quick cut, fast action style in order to keep the young primary target audiences attention. In a way, ParaNorman (2012) is one of the few animated movies to let the story set the pace.

At times, ParaNorman feels like an indie comedy. With the film beginning with a slow mellow pace to it which, in turn allows it to build the characters at a more naturalistic pace. Characters are introduced at first appearing as the usual caricatures. However, as the film develops you begin to see more of them than first meets the eye. The characters feel natural (at times real – almost) and it’s unusual to say that about an animated family movie.

Although the film is pitched to the audience as a comedy, there’s a real respect and patience in building on dramatic plot points. The jokes are here of course (for adults as well as children) but this really isn’t what separates ParaNorman from other family animated features. In fact, it is unusual in a way that this comedy is defined by its serious dramatic moments.

The film really builds on its characters unlike many comedy films. In a way the film owes a certain debt to Spielberg’s early films and in particular The Goonies (1985). But even these films by comparison are quite conventional and safe. With ParaNorman taking some plot swerves, which you really wouldn’t expect.

The themes here are really quite serious - with the idea of the outsider and the small communal reaction to such a thing. But it goes fervour than this as the film begins to relate itself to the town’s puritan past and its celebration of a witch burning. Here they don’t shy away from this, there is a real confrontation with innocence being persecuted because of societal fear of difference. This is something that I found to be very brave for a family film to deal with – the possibility of extreme outcomes to fear, which extenuates to outward aggression. In turn this parallels with Norman’s dealings with the towns people who look on him as strange because he can speak with dead people.

Overall, I believe this is what the film is fundamentally about. It’s not about visual spectacle; it’s not about the comedy or even to some extent the characters. In this way it could have very easily come across as heavy-handed but because of the craft of the story and narrative this was never the case. In fact, it is important to mention that if it wasn’t for the animation being so visually appealing or the characters being so relatable, (and the actors fulfilling their roles as such) then the film would have been no where near as impactful with its narrative themes.

In truth, because the movie is so engaging it could be discussed all day. Not forgetting to mention that the film has probably the first openly gay character in a family animated film – or the fact that his physique and attitude go completely against distasteful social stereotypes. The point isn’t played up and is only dispelled in what could arguably called a throw away line at the end of the film only goes to show the movies maturity not to dwell on information that overall, has very little significance. The filmmakers should be largely applauded for their achievements and decisions in making this film. What they have managed to achieve somehow is a very intelligent, funny, at times serious film, which is able to extend itself to an unthought-of cross age appeal.

Wreck-it Ralph Directed by Rich Moore – A Film Review

American animation has been dominated in recent years (in cinemas) by two animation companies: DreamWorks and Pixar. So when an animated film comes from another studio it is always interesting to see how they are going to take visuals and story telling differently. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) comes from Disney’s animated studios which, although in the past having a monopoly over cinemas animated features, they have certainly had a sketchy record as of late.

Directed by Rich Moore who previously worked on such animated shows as Futurama (1999 - present), The Simpsons (1989 - present) and cult favourite Drawn Together (2004 - 2008), helms this film about a bad guy who just wants to be good for a change. Ralph himself is a video game character in an arcade game and has always been the villain. When the arcade closes all of the other characters go home to their apartments while Ralph lives alone in a dump. At an anniversary party for his game, Ralph interrupts and an argument ensues. In this everyone accuses him of being mean for constantly destroying things; unaware he has to do this for their game to continue. During this procession Ralph is told he can live with the others if he gets a heroes medal.

This then sets up the rest of the film with Ralph attempting to prove he is good while others stand in his way. It’s a basic adventure story in many ways. Yet the characters seem to have a real flare about them here. There’s times when the humour is slightly childish but the characters feel genuine to the story. There is growth and development as Ralph meets other characters including those from games no longer in circuit. Others appear hostile, yet some remain friendly. Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) is a glitch that wants to be a racer in a Super Mario Kart like game. Although they don’t get along at first, there feelings begin to grow to more positive towards another. At first acting antagonistic, eventually they decide to help one another to try and achieve each other’s goals.

Although this so far may just seem to outline a basic action adventure, it is in fact the character relations and the animator’s love for video games and the world they have created that puts it beyond this. Even with an at times, casual use of childish humour, the film stands out for the whole family.

Again, even though the structure of the narrative is very basic, this kind of structure can (and does) at times work to a stories advantage. Wreck-it Ralph wont change cinema as an art form, it wont change animation or storytelling in general, but what it does is tell a story well, and with enough passion and sentiment to make even the most cynical of us give it a recommendation.