Saturday 30 June 2012

Polisse




This French crime-drama probably won't appear in high street chain cinemas (to my knowledge), but if you get a chance, seek this out. Polisse (purposefully miss-spelt as though by a child) is a warts-and-all look at a year in the lives of police workers in a Child Protection Unit in Paris.

It's a real shame that the title is mis-leading and the description a little yawn-inducing. What sounds like a grim look at Paris' gritty underbelly is actually a sharply-written free-form drama composed of several vignettes that are by turns haunting, life-affirming, dramatic, and even surprisingly funny.

It's refreshing to see a serious and difficult subject being treated in this way. No dark blue/green shots of po-faced actors scowling as they recount the grim details of another child-prostitution ring here. If anything, the most striking element of many scenes (apparently all drawn from real events discovered while researching the film) is their sheer banality.

An early scene has an old man being summarily scolded by the CPU workers as he sheepishly denies the sexual abuse of his grand-daughter as though he were a boy caught with his hand in the biscuit tin. It's awkward and jarring in its domesticity, particularly when contrasted with the tension and weight we might expect from an American drama (especially in the wake of the recent Sandusky case).

A later scene sees the workers practice their shooting in a firing-range, presented in a wonderfully breezy and irreverent way. It's a million miles from the seriousness of recent "séries polars" that have made their way to BBC4 over the years.

The cast is uniformly excellent, mostly comprised of star actors playing low-key every-men with a refreshing lack of ego. The stand-out however has to be newcomer Joey Starr, hitherto best known in France as an infamous rap-artist known for conspicuously lacking grace during interviews. He plays his character with maturity, depth, and range, never selling any emotion short in the more high-drama moments.


Some scenes are a little too on the nose, as is the case half-way in where a conservative male muslim refuses to be processed by a female worker, who in a grandstanding speech reveals herself to also be Muslim, proceeding to point out the lack of basis in the Koran for female oppression amongst Muslims. It is very timely given the anti-Islamic sentiment in France (the far-right party won third place in the General Election this year), but the lack of subtlety makes it stick out in this otherwise effortlessly naturalistic ensemble piece.

Another scene that generated some mixed response, most notably in my mind from Sight & Sound, is the one in which a group of CPU workers are interviewing a teenage girl who admits to performing oral sex to get her smartphone back. Despite their best efforts, the CPU staff begin laughing uncontrollably, cracking gallows humour one-liners as the puzzled victim looks on (e.g. "what would you do for a computer then?"). What appears as an insensitive and flippant treatment of a delicate situation is in my view a common response borne out of fatigue and stress that I have witnessed all too often in burnt-out staff on mental health in-patient wards. The laughter produced by such a moment is intelligent precisely because it is discomforting in the dissonance it creates. Such moments show that the workers we're following aren't wholly likeable and nor should they be; at the same time, when faced day-in day-out with child abuse cases it's natural to develop a dark absurdist humour as a defence mechanism; an identifiably human trait I recognise all too well from my own job.

The vignette style does mean a certain slapdash approach to continuity, and perhaps too much time is given to the private home-life of each worker, but all in all, I give Polisse 5 Jerry Sanduskys out of 5 (I am going to hell).

Tuesday 26 June 2012

In Defence of Prometheus

Insert 'Inception BRAAAHM noise' here

I'm a little late to the party, but I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring and give an honest and generally favourable opinion of Prometheus; timely now that the internet furore has begun to subside.

Let me begin by saying that I forked out a mini-fortune to see this film; digitally projected in wholly unnecessary full-mega-rhomboscopic-3D at my local film emporium (rhymes with Ode to Leon). I even brought my own pair of 3D glasses, having sussed out a while ago that extra profit is gleaned from sorry punters by forcing them to part with cash for new glasses at each screening, should you be one of the poor fools who didn't realise you're supposed to keep the first pair you buy: "What, you mean you don't keep your 3D glasses on you at all times you dopey cunt? 5 quid chump.". I did all of this, then sat through all 124 minutes of Ridley Scott's welcome return to the sci-fi genre (subtract around 5 minutes for credits, I'm not that hardcore). And you know what, I fucking loved it.

Let me explain.

It is true, there are many problems with this film: a number of sub-plots that don't tie together, simplistic characterisation, some awful dialogue, and a heft of groan-inducing movie cliches ("Why do they take their helmets off in the cave?", "Why don't they simply run perpendicular to the trajectory of the rolling spacecraft", "Why does it matter that Charlize Theron is Weyland's duaghter?" etc.).

The difference between me and clearly most internet film nerds is that I simply made a mental note of these shortcoming and moved on, too enthralled as I was by the grandiose set-pieces and epic visuals to agonise about plot, character development or scientific accuracy. This last aspect galls me in particular.  It seems to be a problem inherent within the science-fiction genre. Just because Science is involved in this -fiction, it somehow becomes the moral responsibility of all the internet's fanboy geeks erudite logicians to make a comprehensive run-down of all its inaccuracies. Worrying about how plausible the science of an alien thriller in space is is exactly the kind of superficial pretension that passes for discernment these days.

Don't tell me you didn't cry during Wall-E because "the future won't look like that"



But speaking more broadly, to charge a mainstream summer blockbuster with inaccuracy of any kind is, to quote Apocalypse Now, like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I've actually heard comic book fans defend the Chris Nolan Batman films whilst slamming the success of The Avengers by saying, quote: "at least Batman could happen." (Should it though by the way? Clearly they've not heard of this guy).
It's these sorts of people that watch a simplistic, yet admittedly well executed dystopian parable like Gattacca and proudly uphold it as a real possibility, thus making it a better film. That's not really the point is it?

As an aside, I will go out on a limb and say that inaccuracy isn't a problem even for more superficially "legitimate" art-house films.
I recently watched the beautiful and complex A Separation (my favourite film of 2011),
an Iranian quasi-whodunnit with multiple narrative strands that tie together effortlessly. A central plot point involves a man accused of pushing his pregnant maid down the stairs, causing her to lose her child. The ensuing legal process highlights a number of themes in a Rashomon-style examination of truth and social class in modern-day Tehran. Half-way through, the person watching alongside me pointed out that it is a medical myth that falling down the stairs can cause a woman to lose her baby, proudly explaining that there are many sad cases of women being pushed down the stairs by abusive husbands hoping to lose an unwanted pregnancy, only to find their wives battered but still with child. This same person then became noticeably irate during scenes where the prosecutors and defendants argued over responsibility for the lost pregnancy, clearly in a huff at their collective ignorance of modern medical knowledge. If only they could've communicated this to the Academy of Motion Pictures before A Separation won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 2012...

I would offer a guess that the agony induced by plot holes in film is in part caused by the over-dependence on action and plot in most media, whether it be film, television, or literature (Fifty Shades of Grey, what what ladies!). It seems that even dialogue has simply become another action set-piece where a smart line is like a sword being swung at an opponent; a witty comeback a successful parry. Compare this to a Mike Leigh film where characters are awkward and embarrassing like the people you know; their seemingly innocuous dialogue revealing deep-seated insecurities and dashed dreams.

This action-plot-action-plot dynamic pervades mainstream film-making and produces a streamlined pleasure buffet, akin to a Big Mac meal or a plate of hot buffalo wings at a motorway sports-bar. I'm not being precious here; I like fast food as much as the next man. I just know to call it what it is and move on.

People who complain that their Summer blockbusters aren't intelligent enough clearly don't understand the oxymoron implied in their statement. The simple fact is that such complaints are clever, certainly, but ignorant.
It reminds me of Brave New World, where Bernard Marx's superior intellect produces in him the strange feeling that the pristine manufactured world around him isn't all it could be, but is too unaware of what falls outside this microcosm of passive hedonism that he simply becomes a false cynic, appearing more "discerning" in his continued engagement in the pleasure rituals of The World State. Hollywood ain't all there is, folks.

Well done, you're more intelligent than Damon Lindelof, co-creator of Lost, that brain-buster of a franchise

I've become deeply morose when considering the current and future state of mainstream Hollywood cinema; my default assumption is that the film I'm about to see is riddled with unrealistic characters and plots that don't make any sense. I'm therefore pleasantly surprised when the overall experience is a happy one, as in the case of Prometheus.

But I know that's not what everyone else wanted. You wanted a high-concept horror-thriller with enough integrity to pass itself off as a real "film". You wanted to have your cake and eat it.
And from time to time, this is almost possible. Every now and then, the studio machine churns out a product so filled with talent, so pumped with creative juices that for a brief moment, our brains are tricked into thinking we're watching something meaningful.

I would argue the original Alien achieves this, made at the tail end of a time when Hollywood was in love with European film and a more naturalistic style of acting. The crew of the Nostromo bantered like real grimy space truckers, talking over each other like a Robert Altman film, so that when John Hurt finally has his ribcage redecorated by a frog-snake-thing, it comes as a deliciously horrible surprise (perhaps due in part to the cast not being told what would happen before hand, so legend goes).

But we all knew that couldn't possibly fly in the modern age right? We all knew that Prometheus would be a RIDLEY SCOTT PICTURE (TM), rather than a Ridley Scott film, didn't we? From the moment I heard that aptly-cheekboned Noomi Rapace's main character wore a cross on a chain round her neck, I knew that the film would have contrived simplistic answers to the films big-question premise (Noomi Rapace is lovely though).






I knew that what would fill this hole would be the stunning H. R. Giger inspired design, the beautiful holographics, and the thrilling set-pieces (the surgery scene has to be a stand-out of bonkers Hollywood grue).
I also had a suspicion that the android David, played by my current favourite actor Michael Fassbender, would be an interesting multidimensional character with great lines to spit at the crew in a patronisingly polite manner. It didn't bother me that the rest of the crew were one-dimensional alien fodder.



I also thought the "engineers" looked great. I know they look a bit like albino chippendales, but they're just the right mixture of strange and familiar to help suspend ones disbelief.


If you honestly want to see a real sci-fi film that asks big questions and delivers on all fronts, go watch Solaris; and not the Soderbergh/Clooney indulgent re-hash, the original, full flavour Tarkovsky film. There isn't a single tattooed geologist in there, I can promise you. It also doesn't have any aliens (unless you count the planet Solaris itself) or conventional narrative structure, just a lot of Bach and poetry with characters asking rhetorical questions.


In fact go watch Tarkovsky's Stalker too while you're at it. That shit's brilliant.