Martin Scorsese’s first foray into 3D and children’s cinema has produced a mixed bag of a film that will leave you equal parts charmed, touched, disappointed and surprised.
I have always associated the name “Hugo” with the unexpected. At my primary school a boy of that name, as naked as a newborn baby, burst into the classroom one day to ask the teacher if we were required to wear pants for PE. I haven’t encountered a Hugo since with sufficient charisma to banish that hilarious and utterly strange memory. And Scorsese’s Hugo doesn’t quite manage it either, despite some magical moments.
For me these whiffs of cinematic fairy dust can be found mostly at the beginning of the film. Scorsese introduces us to the world of Parisian orphan Hugo Cabret, who maintains the clocks clandestinely at a train station all by himself, in startling, unforgettable fashion. At first we hover over a sparkly skyline with the Eiffel Tower at its heart, descending gently through marvellously lifelike 3D snowflakes. Then the camera plunges dramatically towards the station that is Hugo’s home, zooming along the tracks and in between the vivid crowds. This shot has incredible depth and uses 3D, as well as traditional set design, to astonishing effect. All our senses feel completely immersed and submerged in the setting of Scorsese’s story.
Unfortunately Hugo’s Achilles heel is its overwhelming lack of a story. The whole movie looks and feels fantastic and there are some exciting set pieces that make excellent use of the spot on period detail. But Hugo is all setup and no payoff. Scorsese sets the scene so perfectly in the opening shots that he needn’t delay steaming on towards the meat of the plot. By the end it becomes clear that the story is nothing but the framework for a lecture and certain sections of the audience, particularly children after a gripping seasonal tale, might well feel cheated.
Scorsese’s lecture is about the worth and wonder of early cinema. There are all the elements of normal children’s films to begin with, including Sacha Baron Cohen’s bumbling slapstick as the station inspector, but then there is a sudden and random transition to the history of the movies. The shift is executed via some sledgehammer dialogue, totally lacking in subtlety or relevance to the back story. The mystery of the clockwork mannequin left behind by Hugo’s dead father (Jude Law) is connected to the movies and is, at least initially, rather flimsy and uninspiring.
However Hugo ultimately delivers an innocent, personal journey not on offer to children elsewhere. It may be disjointed but great performances from the young leads, coupled with Scorsese’s skill and passion for cinema tackling truths of the human condition like purpose and loneliness, makes this lecture more moving and awe inspiring than anything on offer on campus.
My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Sometimes you really wish you could forget someone. Not because you want to but because you feel like you have to. People are forever telling you to “move on” from them, as if they were a shifty beggar in the street wasting your time. They have condemned you to the rubbish dump of their lives, so you should do the same. Whatever you manage to salvage from the wreckage of them will only remind you of the way things were before the crash, in a time you cannot travel back to. It’s time for a new stage of your life, minus them.
There are days when it feels like you might be able to do it. There are loads of things to live for, more pluses than minuses dotting the horizon of the future. But the thing is life has a knack of throwing reminders your way that jolt you back to her, to him, to them, to there. Oh look, memory sneers in a stage whisper from the shadows, it’s the bar you spent all night talking in, the river bank where you first kissed or the station she used to get off at. Even when you’ve succeeded in blanking them out from familiar places, their memories surprise you in other ways.
“This was our song” is a phrase you often hear from the devastated dumpee, just before their face melts in a cascade of noisy tears, possibly years after the breakup itself. Then there’s the novel that becomes ostracised on the book shelf because of a strange connection you are suddenly seeing these days within its pages. Even their favourite paper or magazine can give you a slap in the newsagents occasionally.
Some of the worst offenders are films. There will be the trashy romantic comedy given inexplicable significance because it happened to be your first date. There will be films that divided you and films you wished them to see. And there will be some favourites of theirs you never found the time to watch.
This was the case for me as I finally watched Amelie in its entirety. I had seen bits of it but never the whole thing. I knew that the music was fantastically whimsical and enchanting. I had watched an uplifting scene via YouTube in which Amelie spirits a blind man along a street, vividly describing everything in a whirlwind of sensuous movement. I knew it was French and starred Audrey Tautou. And I knew it was one of the favourite films of someone I wish I could forget.
In a way I was desperate to hate Amelie. I knew what it would be like because I knew the people that liked it. I was hoping that it would try too hard, alienate me with its quirkyness and annoy me with its arty farty simplifications. There were times I felt a little like that. But mostly I loved it.
Why did I hope that I wouldn’t? It was hard at points to be enjoying it so much because they enjoy it. How much easier it would have been to be repulsed and to have found another tiny reason to take another minute step forward and away from the past!
Amelie is about being alive, feeling alive and dreaming. It’s about the smaller things, so particular and peculiar that they must be real, containing a touch of magic that makes life worthwhile. It is extremely funny and eccentric, fresh and unique.
It’s the eccentricity that I thought might annoy me. I thought that Amelie might have been quirky for its own sake, as so many films of its ilk are. But Amelie’s comedy is crucial to its success. It is almost self mocking at times with the ridiculous and random nature of its details.
In the opening twenty minutes I fell in love with the narration. Normally voiceover is catastrophic and awful. Perhaps Amelie’s is so charming and intoxicating because it is French. Or perhaps it is that at once meaningful and light hearted tone, which doesn’t take itself too seriously. Amelie feels like a novel throughout its enjoyable beginning which explains her tragic yet amusing childhood. Characters are brought to life instantly because of their odd habits and Amelie herself has baffling, childlike musings about the world which add to her appeal.
I was disappointed when the narration became less frequent throughout the film, which is extraordinary given my usual distaste for voiceover. I loved the musicality of the voice, the specific details it would come out with and the telling but mysterious insights we’d instantly learn about characters. Most of all I loved the way it seemed to mock any work of art trying much too hard to stand out.
But the retreat of the narrator brings Amelie herself to the foreground. The wonderful lines from the narrator are replaced by some witty and surprising scenes of dialogue. The visuals and sounds of the film grow and grow until modern day Paris seems like a wondrous place, with deserving and interesting souls to be saved on every corner.
I expected Amelie to be preachy, perhaps patronising or too desperate to be different. I wanted to dislike it for my own good. But in the end I am glad to have seen it. I liked it because it’s good, not because of any associations it has with anyone. I thought it was unique and it made me feel alive and full of possibility, regardless of what others think. It’s a beautiful and beguiling film that reminds us how life can be so too, with dreams coming true, big or small, out of nowhere.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 1997, 2001, actor, actress, amusing, arthouse, arty, au revoir, Audrey, Big, blind man, Blu-Ray, bonjour, book, box, Camilla, Charles, childhood, cinema, come, Comedy, comic, conspiracy, detail, details, Di, dialogue, Diana, Diane, director, dreamer, dreams, DVD, eccentric, eccentricity, experience, farty, film, Flickering, France, french, funny, ghost train, Guillaume, ha, happy, help, hilarious, il, imdb, innocent, insights, Jean, Jean-Pierre, Jeunet, jolly, journey, justice, Kassovitz, kindness, LA, Lady, laugh, Laurant, Liam, lies, light hearted, little, love, Love Film, magical, Mathieu, meaningful, merci, Michel, mocking, movie, Mrt'sblog, music, musings, myth, naive, narrator, Nino, nostalgia, novel, novelistic, of, Paris, pink, plot, Poulain, pretentious, Princess, Quincampoix, quirk, quirky, quirkyness, random, ridiculous, Robin, Rotten, Rue, Rufus, satisfaction, save, scene, screenplay, sex shop, simplification, small, soul, star, starring, story, sugar, Tautou, telling, The Two Windmills, Tomatoes, tragic, Trim, true, unique, uplifting, visuals, vivid, voiceover, waitress, Wales, writer, writing
I only discovered BlogalongaBond recently. But blimey what an excellent idea. Talking about 007 once a month for two years, and each film in turn; blogging bliss for Bondian fanatics like me.
Then I realised I had just missed the boat for writing about Goldfinger. My first contribution to BlogalongaBond would have to come hot on the heels of a month’s glowing discussion of the world’s most famous franchise’s most iconic entry. How was I going to compete with that? I couldn’t rant and rave about every single classic scene moulded into cliché by endless reference and repetition. As many bloggers said when reviewing Goldfinger, it was THE Bond film and in the eyes of many every one since has aspired to its formula and fallen short of its magical mix.
After watching Thunderball though, I remembered why it’s always been more than the shit part of the National Lottery to me. I loved Thunderball growing up as a boy, and I love it now. For me it is better than Goldfinger. Aside from From Russia With Love, Thunderball is the film that best captures the origins of the character; Ian Fleming’s James Bond transplanted onto the screen.
Thunderball the novel was a return to form for Fleming, who had taken a break after Goldfinger to produce a collection of short stories, For Your Eyes Only. The book introduces the character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld for the first time and provides Bond with an excellent enemy for two other brilliant novels, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and You Only Live Twice. Of course the films made Blofeld Bond’s ultimate nemesis from the outset, whereas prior to Thunderball, in the literary world of Bond his primary foes had been unorthodox Russian organisation SMERSH. Lampooned in the 60s by Bond spoof Casino Royale, SMERSH sounds unavoidably silly compared to the sinister SPECTRE headed by mysterious Blofeld.
Interestingly the physique of Blofeld in the novels is quite different to that presented in the films. The most memorable portrayal of Blofeld is perhaps Donald Pleasance’s scarred little bald man in You Only Live Twice. In Roger Moore’s time the character is reduced to being dropped down a chimney in a pre titles sequence. Thunderball showcases Blofeld at his best; unknown, all powerful and faceless.
Thunderball also shows off Bond at his best. In a PTS far superior to the aforementioned Roger Moore effort in For Your Eyes Only, we learn everything we need to know about 007. In my view Thunderball’s PTS is also better than Goldfinger’s despite the prevailing view being that Goldfinger’s is the most flawless of the series. As several bloggers pointed out, Bond’s ridiculous duck disguise in Goldfinger spoils the other elements somewhat and to me Thunderball’s PTS is a stronger standalone mini-story, which also ties back to the main adventure.
Steven Spielberg once said that to him, James Bond was a detective, a suave Sherlock Holmes with a gun. For the directing legend Bond was at his best when distilled to this level and he tried to replicate elements of this when creating his Bond equivalent, Indiana Jones. I certainly think that description is a simplification of Bond’s character. But the mighty Spielberg has a point. There’s plenty of sleuthing and relying on Bond’s instincts in Connery’s early films, and particularly Thunderball. It’s something the modern films lost sight of and need to get back to.
Bond is certainly knowing and observational when he unmasks the widow in Thunderball’s PTS as an enemy agent. Connery’s charm, charisma and comedy are turned up to the max and the whole sequence looks stylish. Bond quips and flirts with his female assistant. Then in a brutal, ahead of its time fight scene that the likes of Jason Bourne and the modern 007 are returning to today, Connery kicks his opponent’s ass, savagely strangling him to death with a poker.
The PTS then ends with an outrageous escape via jet pack and gadgets galore on the sleek Aston Martin. These tongue in cheek gizmos aside, the gadgets in Thunderball are at the pitch perfect level. There’s a wonderful scene with Q in which sensible but clever gadgets are introduced that will return to prove vital in the plot. Connery’s sparky dialogue with Desmond Llewelyn is the best in the entire series.
So after the PTS we know who we’re dealing with; James Bond 007, licence to kill, with girls, guns, gadgets and grisly action galore. It’s then that the film introduces the masterly plot that remains durable, relevant, captivating and even slightly plausible today. Goldfinger took Fleming’s immense imagination and made his ideas work better on film than they did in the novel. In Thunderball Fleming’s fantastical schemes once again marvel and delight, and shock and scare, this time sticking closer still to the original story. It’s a testament to the story’s selling power that a major legal tussle over the rights to a remake led to the 1983 unofficial entry starring an aged Connery, Never Say Never Again.
The legacy of the nuclear arms race remains an issue today and the power of rogue atomic weapons to frighten certainly endures. The enormous importance and scale of events adds terrific drama to the story. It’s a drama any Bond film needs and thrives off of; the global significance bearing down on 007’s shoulders as he conquers personal hurdles to unravel it all. Coming up with the perfectly judged plot remains the biggest challenge for those behind new Bond films today because they can’t compete with Fleming.
Thunderball is the first of the films to deal with Fleming’s fascination of the sea and the underwater world. Today it is increasingly difficult to find exotic locations for Bond when holidays can whisk you practically anywhere in a flash. But the colourful realm beneath the waves, glowing in a turquoise tint, remains another mostly inaccessible world. There’s something alien and yet attractive about the monstrous creatures living amongst the sand and sun rays. There’s something dark about anyone who can master this environment and exploit it for his own gain. Something secretive about the tropical depths.
Emilio Largo had a tough act to follow. Auric Goldfinger is the master villain to beat with his distinctive characteristics and fondness for a verbal duel prior to some ghastly fate waiting for our hero. Largo also struggles to impose himself when the magnificent early scene, with one of THE Ken Adam set designs, showing the SPECTRE meeting makes it clear that he is merely a puppet and drone himself. The true power lies elsewhere. This definitely makes him a different kind of villain. He doesn’t compete with Goldfinger but he doesn’t lack menace or do a bad job either.
What about the girls then? For me in Domino and Fiona Volpe we have two of the best Bond girls ever. Pussy Galore, as played by Honour Blackman, is iconic for sure but mainly because of Fleming’s outrageous name. Domino comes across as one of the most beautiful girls that even Bond himself has ever seen in the novel, and Claudine Auger doesn’t do a bad job at all of visually representing this on screen. As for Volpe, she is incredibly sexy and seductive. Her bright red hair set her out as dangerous, but also as red hot. The scene where she is waiting for Bond in the bath and he offers her merely shoes to put on, and the dancing scene at the Kiss Kiss club where she dies, are two of the most memorable in cinematic history for me personally, never mind the Bond series.
During Bond’s scenes with Volpe there are some cracking Bondian quotes from the script and Connery also delivers some of his best lines in the role sparring with Largo: “Do you know a lot about guns?”, “No but a little about women”, for example.
Another reason for Bond’s scenes with Volpe being so memorable for me, particularly the ones at the Mardi Gras, is the film’s score. I think Thunderball is the first time Barry uses the “00 theme” and his variations on the Bond theme itself to provide tense music are catchy and complimentary to the action throughout. Even when the film has aged less well, for example the scene in the health club on the rack and the unintentionally comedic speeded up careering of the boat at the end, the music remains superb. Tom Jones’ title song is no Goldfinger, but it’s undoubtedly addictive and Bondian. And besides I hear poor old Shirley so much that her voice starts to grate.
In the end it’s for those moments in which we see what purists call the “real Bond” that I remember Thunderball. When Connery calmly kills the Professor in Dr.No after he’s had his six shots I knew that was a truly Bondian moment. It marks out the detached killer in Bond’s character so well. He is so used to living his work that he carries it off with a ruthless efficiency that looks effortless and irresistibly cool. There’s another moment like this in Thunderball. When Largo’s chief henchman Vargas is sneaking up on Domino and Bond on the beach, Domino spots him. Bond turns, almost nonchalantly rolling over, to fire a harpoon through his chest. This is the assassin in Bond. The moment’s slightly spoilt by Connery’s quip, “I think he got the point”, but even this dark humour becomes part of the character that fans can love.
Watch Thunderball and you’ve hit the 007 jackpot; never mind the riches of Goldfinger.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 007, 00s, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1983, 2010, action, aged, agent, assassin, Aston, atomic, Auric, Barry, Blofeld, blog, BlogalongaBond, blogging, Bond, Bondesque, Bondian, book, Bourne, Britain, British, Casino, challenge, character, charm, chase, Comedy, Community, Connery, cool, Craig, Cuts, Dalton, Daniel, David, debate, detective, devious, direct, director, discussion, Dominique, Domino, Duvall, explosion, extortion, facebook, fight, film, films, Fiona, Fleming, follow, funny, gadgets, George, girls, gizmos, Goldfinger, gun, Guy, Hamilton, health, history, HQ, Ian, imdb, Indiana, jackpot, James, Jason, John, Jones, kill, Largo, Lazenby, Liam, London, Lottery, love, Martin, Miami, Moore, movie, movies, myth, narrative, Nassau, Never Say Never Again, new, novel, Number 2, online, outlandish, Paris, Peter, plot, ransom, Real, retreat, Review, reviews, Roger, Rotten, Royale, Russia, scene, scheme, script, Sean, secrets, Sellers, sex, sexy, shoot, sleek, SMERSH, Soviet, spa, SPECTRE, Spielberg, spoof, Steven, story, style, suave, talk, tension, Terence, terror, The, The Incredible Suit, ThunderBall, Timothy, Tom, Tomatoes, Trim, true, Twitter, UK, Ultra Culture, underwater, USA, Verdict, Volpe, write, writer, writing, young