Total Recall: My Unbelievably True Life Story (2012) by Arnold Schwarzenegger – A Book Review

It’s rather a rarity in my case for me to pick up (or even gloss over) an autobiography. Yet there was something about this book that tempted me to it. Something strangely intriguing, and admirable much like the author’s many on screen personas.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has always divided opinion. Some view his work as tactless and wooden, brutish and annoying, even stiff or shallow. Whereas others mention his bizarre charisma, the way he is able to stand and mesmerize on screen, or how he embodies the American dream, of a young Austrian who through his own tact and determination became a self made man.

I myself of course, have my own opinion. I’ve always enjoyed his on screen roles. Even from a young age I can remember watching his performances in the first two Terminator movies and being mesmerized by a man who, through his physical presence, was able to convince me he was a machine. Even taking into account his more comedic roles, I think it shouldn’t be doubted that from his performances in Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2 (1991) that Schwarzenegger is a talented actor who can well and truly embody a role.

But to be fair, this book isn’t about Arnold Schwarzenegger the actor – it’s about Arnold Schwarzenegger the man. Who is he? Where did he come from? And what happened in-between? These are all reasons that would usually put me off reading an autobiography. But it’s Arnold, and there is just something so unique about him, his charisma and his personality that just draws me in.

The book itself is split into three sections, covering the three main passions of Arnold’s life: bodybuilding, acting and politics – with each covering roughly a third of the books length.

In the first third, the narrative is able to grab and engage you in a subject that’s considered quite fringed in the subject of bodybuilding. Yet from Arnold’s perspective he is able to ground us on his level. Through his telling of the story, we are able to understand his passion and love for the sport of bodybuilding. This energy and enthusiasm flows through the reader as you read about his struggles and triumphs, and ultimately we empathies with his desire and determination to succeed.

When later in the book we reach his recollection of his acting career he is honest about his goals and determination to where he wanted to be. We see how many people in Hollywood didn’t take him seriously, and how through being tactful in choosing roles that worked to his strengths and personality, he was able to achieve those aims.

Not to say that Schwarzenegger didn’t put in the necessary effort to study and perfect his craft. Arnold made a strong effort to learn from everyone he could to improve his performance. Whether from acting teachers, fellow actors or members of the production crew, he made it his goal to learn from those who could (and were willing) to make his performances better. Not only that, but he would also pay attention to audience reactions and made a direct effort to understand particular box office trends.

The book tells of Arnold’s business skills and studying throughout. He see’s himself as a self-made man and in particular, he discusses how he pushed himself to learn and succeed in numerous ventures. He’s someone who doesn’t hold back on his dreams and in the third section we are told how and why this lead him into politics. Arnold is a large personality with a strong sense of morals, and he explains how he wasn’t afraid to go off party line to do what he thought was right.

Like the rest of the book, the section on politics is interesting, but I think in realty this has more to do with Schwarzenegger’s personality shining through than the political content being exposited. Because of this, I’m not really sure how well this book would come across to others. For myself, the most interesting autobiographies are often those where the story being told shines through. The sense of engagement with the narrative and what is going on as you read the pages should pull you in a way that you feel as though you are almost an accomplice to the story. And yet with this book it’s not necessarily because of the content, but more through the charisma of the narrator that the story continues to be engaging. Less the story, and more the man telling it that makes it what it is.

That isn’t to say it’s a bad story, it’s an interesting one at that; it’s just to say that it might not live up to what some people would probably expect.

(I myself on the other hand, really liked it.)

Pumping Iron (1977) Directed by Robert Fiore & George Butler – A Film Review

It seems strange to me that a documentary about a sport of which I have never had much interest could be so engaging throughout. But in a way Pumping Iron (1977) isn’t so much about the competition itself, as it is about those who compete: people like Mike Katz, Lou Ferrigno, Franco Columbu, and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

The documentary might be a Hollywood drama, as each of the key bodybuilders is given a backstory and the correct time to tell it to the camera. You have the middle-aged man trying to step up to the big-time (Mike Katz), the young up and comer (Lou Ferrigno), and the king of the mountain (Schwarzenegger). Each has their own needs and reasons for doing what they do. In many ways you’d expect this to be clichéd or trite in its presentation, but one of the things that sticks out about the documentary is the genuine sincerity that each participant brings to the film.

No one in particular stands out as a good guy or bad guy, and everyone appears genuine. They discuss their passions freely and many larger than life personalities shine through. Some of them are show offs; others are more down to earth and sincere.

In the second half, the film transitions to the story of Arnold vs. Ferrigno; champion vs. challenger. We hear both sides of the story as we cross cut between each of their preparations for the Mr. Olympia event. We see the struggles, we see their pain and eventually as the two meet, we see some mind games at play.

Overall, the documentary is well shot in a kind of cinema vérité style. Many shots are static and help the audience focus on the events being shown to us, however others feature a zoom lens in stylized motion, which at times felt unnecessary. Yet, it would be unfair to suggest these stylistic choices didn’t add some charm to the overall presentation. At times the zooming helped highlight the pace and action that the filmmakers were going for, although I think this only worked to a certain degree.

Those looking for a documentary on the intricacies of the sport of bodybuilding might be disappointed by this work. But those interested in the psychology and mindset of these athletes will be pleasantly surprised by this intricate and genuinely endearing document of their work.

Sympathy For Mr Vengeance (2002) directed by Park Chan-Wook – A Film Review

Out of sheer desperation, an out of work deaf man kidnaps the infant child of his former boss to raise the money for an operation to save his sisters life. With the help of his terrorist girlfriend, they manage to snatch the young girl. However when they try to drop off the girl something goes wrong, and in the exchange the girl is killed. This in turn sets off a series of events, as this group of people begin acting out violent revenge upon one another.

Overall the narrative is quite tight. There never really seems to be a moment of dwelling to long or the story being overinflated. Although the film is two hours long, the story keeps you attentive to the action on screen. This is aided by the graceful work of the actors, director and cinematographer who all do excellent jobs here.

In the layout of the narrative there is also an interesting point to note, in the fact that the actual event in which the young kidnapped child is killed is not shown on screen. Not only does it mean we don’t have to witness the tragedy, but it also means that we have to rely on second hand information and come up with our own conclusion on what may have really come to pass.

Yet that is not to say that the film is perfect. There are some sequences where the violence or actions on screen seem a little to extreme. In particular towards the beginning of the film we see the protagonists sister moaning in pain because of her kidneys. This is then intercut with a shot of a group of young men next door circle jerking to the sound of the moaning. Personally, I found the shot gratuitous; but I do realize how the shot could be justified as symbolism of the society as a wholes lack of sympathy to other people’s pain. Other times it seems that violence is highlighted on for too long, making it seem as though the filmmakers were slightly too captivated by the acts themselves. Again, this could be explained as the filmmakers trying to show the extremities of the revenge that they seek, yet there is something about it that just seems too fetishist to convince me of this.

It seems Park set out on this film to create a clever novelistic thriller, and to that point, he mostly achieved this. He aimed to show what extremes people would go to if they felt they had no other choice and emotions compelled them to do so. And, in many ways again, the film does this. Yet there is something here that doesn’t stand quiet right. An air of exploitation stands cloaked behind this high art (to some extent societal / political) thriller. It seems to some extent that a more sensitive approach was needed in parts to the subject matter, and the times where the movie feels exploitive really take you out of the film and I believe would be off putting for most viewers. 

Stoker (2012) directed by Park Chan-Wook – A Film Review

Directed by one of South Korea’s foremost film directors, Stoker is the first of acclaimed filmmaker Park Chan Wook’s works to be made in the English language. With the story of this British / American co-production being primarily based around a girl in her late teens whose father has recently passed away, only for her estranged uncle to show up out of the blue at his funeral. The uncle soon becomes involved with his dead brothers wife, but not all is right with the mysterious stranger. Things later take a more sinister turn as the young girl finds a dead body in the house.

The film is really quite well directed as you may expect from seeing Park’s previous work. There is a real aura of suspense building throughout the movie that is well handled for the most part. The film is also well shot with some really interesting sequences to the cinematography. Acting in the film is well handled as each actor fully embodies his or her role. However, what did stand out as an off-putting component to the film was some of the blatant plot holes in the movie.

Let me explain. Throughout the film there are points of revelation of information relating to the plot and characters. There is a suspense that builds here around character motives and the possibility of danger they may hold to the protagonist. Ominous events occur, as a precursor to these larger moments of revelation, but one of things we expect to rely on is that the protagonist will react in a way that is relatable for the audience. Case in point, early into the film the protagonist (India) finds a body in her house that may or may not have been put there by her uncle and yet she doesn’t ring the police. Why? She is in no way related to this death and already suspects her uncle. But still she doesn’t go to the police.

From this point the film seems to trail off into it’s own bizarre fantasy world. Whilst at school one day, a group of caricature school bullies who are so over the top they would be out of place in a Looney Tunes cartoon attempt to confront India. She then stabs one of them as her uncle is seen watching on. It is here that she meets another classmate who seems quite friendly until a later scene, where he seems to within only a few seconds, switch into a completely different character, and attempts to rape India! None of this makes any sense! His character switch is completely out of nowhere and is in no way believable.

Her uncle Charlie, who proceeds in murdering her classmate, saves India, which is then intercut with a shower scene where India is masturbating over the murder. None of this makes any sense! Why is she suddenly displaying psychotic behavior? Why does she continually not ring the police? How can we relate to a character when there are no grounded qualities to her personality?

In some of Park’s Korean thrillers people are often forced into violent situations for a reason. Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance (2002) and Oldboy (2003) see multiple characters act violently for revenge or in an attempt to achieve some goal, but here in Stoker it seems as though everyone is aimless. Action is random and there is never any sense of reason to what is going on. A suspense thriller builds to confrontation; a mystery thriller builds to revelation and, in the end it feels as though Stoker built itself to nothing. The film seems to get lost around half way through and only really manages to stumble to the finish. That’s not to say there is no confrontation to Charlie’s actions, there is. But when it comes to a conclusion it just feels anticlimactic.

Overall the film wasn’t what you might expect from the advertisements. Its well acted, shot, edited and directed, but there are just too many plot holes to give this a good recommendation. Many critics have failed to notice these flaws and I’m sure other audience members will to, but still, this would be no reason to simply give the film a pass because of these facts. 

The Breakfast Club (1985) directed by John Hughes – A Film Review

In the nineteen eighties John Hughes created some of the most definitive films for the teenagers of that decade. Films like Sixteen Candles (1984), Weird Science (1985), Pretty in Pink (1986), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986), and the subject of this film review The Breakfast Club (1986) helped to play out issues of young people and in the end helped to define their very opinions.

Yet I was not born to this generation. In fact I wasn’t born until nineteen ninety one so I never grew up relating to these films in the same way other generations may have done. To reveal more on this, it wasn’t until my twenties that I actually first saw any of these movies. So unlike many others, I don’t have any kind of nostalgic bias to this material. This also means that I don’t really share the same kind of cultural compass that many who viewed these films at the time of their releases would have.

The basic premise of the film involves five pupils who have for varying reasons been put into a special detention class on a Saturday as punishment for their behavior. Each of them fulfills a specific stereotype of teenagers within an American high school (or any social environment for that matter) of the time. One is a jock / tough guy, another is a prom queen / popular girl, another’s a nerd / conformist and there’s also a criminal / rebel and basket case or introvert.

It’s true that like each of them, when we first meet the pupils we view them in these same terms; through the same social stereotypes. Yet as the film progresses and they as characters get to know each other better a strong bond begins to form between them. Each of them has their own social problems and unique perspective based on the experiences they’ve had. They all discuss in this time the relation between their parents and how that has influenced who they are. It’s during this time that you really begin to notice how they all share a bond in the fact that each of their personalities are formed in someway as a form of submission or rejection of what their parents have taught them. And, the way they inherently react to others is to a degree a reflection on this.

In terms of the films presentation it is really well shot with the majority of the action taking place in one location. The cinematography itself is quite minimalistic in terms of camera movement or elaborate setups. In fact for most of the film the camera is static, which allows us to fully engage the subjects and actors being presented before us without being distracted.

There are many standout performances here, well, to be honest; the film is kind of filled with them. All of the young actors completely pull off their characters and there isn’t anything in sight that pulls you out of any of their performances. Also a keynote to be made here is that none of the characters come across as cheesy or clichéd in their presentation to the audience. Instead they come across as genuine people with mixed emotions and engaging backstories that have a real influence on who they are.

In many ways this film is completely unlike any other high school movie ever made. The film at times comes across like a group psychology session in which everyone is discussing his or her problems, and in many ways I think this is one of the reasons why it is so interesting. We begin to see the posturing that each of them does at the start of the movie be slowly chipped away over time, as we begin to see their true raw emotions.

There are no real detriments to the film. Its weakest aspect is that it has a few eighties songs play throughout which to a small extent ages the film. But overall the film feels as fresh today as it would have when it was released. It’s really quite unusual to see such strong writing in a teen drama. As a lot of them often try to sell themselves on a concept of wacky adventures or moving to a new school, where character development on any real endearing level is usually left by the way side. The premise of The Breakfast Club however, forces these kids to talk with one another when they are stuck in a classroom together on a Saturday. They are forced to engage with these other people who they don’t know and through this they learn a lot about each other and some of them learning more about themselves.

For many people this film would have changed how they look at the medium itself. The fact that you could have a whole film based around people just discussing their lives and issues is something that you don’t see that often in American cinema. Aiming for a young audience and not dumbing down the material but talking to them as adults was a smart decision. To many films are created in a way that is too simplistic for younger audiences and this stands as an example of how you can make a smart film for them and have it still be successful. The reason being that this film never tried to talk down to its audience, instead it attempted to genuinely talk to them. Which is something all in itself quite refreshing.