What I've Been Watching: DVD - Awaydays & American History X

Awaydays

Football Hooligan movies fill with me with a certain amount of dread. As a teacher I know the impact such films can have on young impressionable teens. Regardless of their attempts to show the consequences of such violence, there is still a level of style given to the riots between rival football fans that I feel filmmakers should take more responsibility for.

Awaydays does nothing to alleviate such fears. It features skinny teenagers taking on gangs of much older men and coming out with barely a scratch.

Despite this, it may not be the type of movie that would appeal to boys of that certain age. The story centres on the relationship between the main character, Catry, and Elvis. The latter appearing to have feelings that go beyond friendship towards the former.

The problem with the movie is not just that the characters are not particularly likeable, it's that they're also pretty difficult to sympathise with. Whether it's one trying to get the adrenaline rush of being in a brawl, another looking for the satisfaction of love that can never happen, or another trying to hold onto his youth by commanding a company of teens, I care little about their plight.

It's not that the film lacks ambition or has nothing to say. It's just that theyway the story is presented gives us little reason to care. Is this a story about the appeal and dangers of hooliganism? Is it about finding your place in the world? Is it about allowing other people to see the person you really are?

The problem then is not its stylishly shot scenes of hooliganism, neither its unsympathetic characters, but that Awayday's story lacks anything to hang onto - instead, it's as random and pointless as the violence it so readily depicts.


American History X

Another movie which readily depicts violence is American History X, a movie about the relationship between two brothers, the older of whom ends up in jail after a racially motivated attack.

Unlike Awaydays, however, this movie has no problems telling its story, even though it does so in a much more complicated, and hence interesting, manner.

Split between flashbacks in black and white, and the colourful world of the present day, both brothers are forced to face up to the actions that have got them to the place they are at now. The plot being propelled by the younger's assignment to write a paper about how the older one ended up doing time.

Where it excels in my opinion, is in its depiction of family. A family which, although dysfunctional, has little in common with The Tenenbaums nor The Simpsons.Instead they're a family broken apart by grief and resentment for an incident in their past.

Few movies manage to capture so well the many facets that make us who we are as a result of our upbringing and parental environment.

Yet as we dig deeper into what made Edward Norton's character become leader of a white supremacist group, we understand how such an intelligent youth could get it so badly wrong.

We also see how he becomes a father figure to his younger brother, and that Danny's need to follow in his footsteps can only have dire consequences for everyone involved.

Unlike in the world of procedurals like CSI and Without a Trace, the solving of a murder does little to bring closure to such a life-defining event and the consequences of seeing a loved one be killed will live with those closest to them forever.

There are many other aspects to American History X. However, upon first viewing this is the one that stuck out most. It could also be praised for its depiction of race relations, which felt incredibly refreshing - presenting few easy solutions to such a long-standing problem. Never mind Norton's outstanding performance, the narrative structure, the writing or the cinematography. Perhaps it's just best you see it for yourself...

What I've Been Watching - Films on DVD

Requiem for a Dream
Directed by Darren Aronofsky (Pi, The Fountain, The Wrestler), Requiem for a Dream is based on a book of the same name written in the 70s. The dream it refers to is almost certainly the American one: that hard work and determination can give you all your wants and desires in the land of the free.

The validity of said dream is questioned in the form of addiction. The three younger characters are all addicted to heroin, and the lead's mother is addicted to television and junk food.

Aptly described as one of the most depressing movies ever made, the film's plot sees things going from bad (functioning addicts) to worse (their drug dealing business loses its supply/addiction & diet pills that turn out to be amphetamines) to worse again (infected needles, prostitution, the 'diet pills' cause the mother to lose her grip on reality).

The way this is handled by Aronofsky only adds to this sense of despair. The now infamous score; the fast cutting from one tragic character's circumstances to the next; and the use of dream sequences all give the viewer little chance of escape or release.

Though not a horror movie in the traditional sense, this is much more difficult to watch than some random teenager get chopped to death by an enraged masked figure. The pain and suffering feels a lot more pronounced, and the final scene isn't merely affective because of what's going on in front of you, but also because of its intensity, and feeling of never letting up.

Requiem For A Dream is certainly a movie you will remember. I can't decide if I should be angry at Aronofsky for purposefully showing me something so bleak and devoid of hope. Ultimately I feel the message his film has about addiction and the precarious nature of the American Dream is worth telling. Although I wouldn't hold it against anyone who felt they would rather sit this one out.


Mimic
Over the last ten years I've come to love the "B-Movie", by which I mean any movie which forgoes artistic integrity in favour of a more basic form of entertainment. This classification of movies is most closely associated with the horror and action genres (Evil Dead, Crank, Final Destination). And it's perhaps typical of the last ten years, that directors make these movies with the intention of making them as ridiculous and exploitative as possible (cf. Grindhouse).

Del Torro's Mimic should be exactly that. Certainly, I can't see how its writer intended this to be anything other that a fun, rollicking adventure about some bugs that evolve into humanoid predators. Nevertheless, there are some trademarks of del Torro's movies present here that attempt to give it some depth. The opening scene in a children's hospital is reminiscent of The Devil's Backbone, and also the more recent The Orphanage. The use of religious metaphors (The priest falling to his death past a neon sign proclaiming Jesus saves for example) is also in keeping with his modus operandi.

Clearly there's some deeper themes that del Torro wants us to think about. However, given the broad strokes and one-note characters the film contains, any message the film was supposed to convey gets lost under the sound of "Mr Funny Shoes" and co.

Where the film excels is in its silly/exploitative moments. Kids die in the most gruesome of manners; characters collect faeces; insect guts must be smothered over our protagonists so they can hide the smell of their humanity. It's also worth noting that the impressive design of "Mr Funny Shoes" is reminiscent of some of the more iconic creatures from Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy.

Mimic fails in the sense that I don't think it's the movie del Torro intends it to be (especially when viewed alongside his other works). Nevertheless, it's the type of movie that's best watched alongside friends, since the set pieces and idiosyncrasies of the plot are either entirely ridiculous or entirely genius.

Shadow of a Doubt
1943 was a long time ago. 67 years to be precise. It's interesting to me how few people will seek out films from that era, (wrongly) assuming they'll have nothing to saw to a 21st century audience. Unlike bookstores which have whole shelves devoted to 'classics', it's rare to see a similar section in your local Blockbuster.

In many ways Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt does come from a completely different world. Set in a small town, where everyone knows everyone, it opens as Uncle Charlie is about to visit his sister's family, much to the delight of his niece, also called Charlie. However, Charlie's initial delight soon turns to fear, as she discovers some cops have been following her uncle across the states on suspicion of murder.

Like all good movies, you soon forgive its obvious foibles (the slightly dodgy dialogue, and unnecessary repeating of expositional dialogue) as the movie finishes setting-up its key characters and the story of the mysterious Uncle Charlie kicks in.

Aside from the main plot, there's a couple of nice side characters and exchanges that give the film some depth beyond that of a traditional thriller. The father and his best friend are constantly discussing ways of killing one another, inspired by detective stories like Sherlock Holmes and so on. Despite this, they have no clue about the real-life mystery going on around them.

Also admirable is Hitchcock's depiction of small-town America: which purposefully idolises the way people are overly familiar with one another's lives. Meaning travellers like Uncle Charlie are seen as as great adventurers with colourful, exhilarating stories to share.

Shadow of a Doubt is clearly a well-loved movie (No. 201 in IMDb's Top 250 movies of all-time). It's nicely paced and well constructed, and although not a masterpiece, it is nevertheless consistently enjoyable and entertaining.

What I've Been Watching - Films on DVD - January

Sunshine Cleaning (2009)
Sunshine Cleaning is a film by the producers that brought you 2006's Little Miss Sunshine. It tells the story of two sisters, played by Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, who start their own company cleaning houses after suicides, murders, or generally gruesome deaths.

The film very much sticks to the same formula that made Little Miss Sunshine a success: humour, darkness, family, and Alan Arkin. The problem is it's not as good. If you're going to market a movie on the success of the first, you need to either make it different enough that it's not fair to compare them, or so great that it doesn't matter.

It's a pity, because there is a lot to like. The performances of Amy Adams and Emily Blunt are superb, and they give a lot of depth to the two leads. It's well written and it's also nice to see a movie with female leads that's not a romantic comedy/horror. The balance between dark subject matter and humour is well navigated, and the idea of death being difficult to clean-up works as a good metaphor for what's happened in each of the characters' lives.

In summation: "a difficult second album".

Pi (1998)
Pi is directed by Darren Aronofsky and is his first foray into the world of film. The main character, Max, is a mathematician who believes patterns exist not only in nature, but society. He aims to prove this by finding a pattern in the stock market.

It's impossible to talk about the film without mentioning the way it's shot. Told entirely from the lead's point of view: it's in black and white, uses strange camera angles, slow frame rates, and dream sequences with brains. All of this is designed to show us how the main character sees the world: distorted, intense but with an underlying order he can't quite grasp.

The movie does a good job of showing the madness and obsession of genius: the protagonist can be viewed as either entirely delusional or as someone who is really close to grasping a reality no one else can see.

The movie succeeds in a lot of ways, however, as someone who knows a bit about maths, it annoyed me that the maths used was so broad and da-Vinci-code-like. As a consequence, the film failed to convince me of the protagonist's genius, and allowed me only to see his madness and obsession. It almost pains me to say that a much less ambitious film, A Beautiful Mind, did a better job of keeping this balance.

Sideways (2006)
Sideways stars Paul Giamatti as a middle-aged divorcee who is going to be best man for his old college friend, played by Thomas Hayden Church. Before Giamatti gets married, they go off for a weekend together in Tuscan, where one wants to drink wine and play golf, and the other to "sow his wild oats" while he still can.

Sideways is a movie which has a lot going for it: the script, characters and story are all work together to produce a believable world that's easy to become invested in. Giamatti gives a faultless performance of pain, regret and longing as he allows us to root for his character despite the idiosyncrasies and pretension he displays.

If the film has any faults, it's that it's best scene is half-way through the movie. Those of you who have seen the movie will remember the point where Giamatti compares himself to Pinot Noir. After that, I felt as though the film almost ran out of things to say - That scene gives us everything we need to know about his character, and tells us everything about the relationship that is about to develop. Action movies normally save their best set-piece until last, given this is a 'conversation' movie, it's a pity it didn't do the same.

Despite what I considered a mis-step, I still really enjoyed the movie, and I'm sure I'll revisit its rich, developed characters at some point in the future.