26 March 2014

New post!

By which I mean, an entire new blog dedicated to film reviews (and other cinema related stuff).

The new blog is called Cinema cope (yes, Google tells me I'm the first person to come up with that one: you are welcome). It is, unsurprisingly, where I'll post film reviews. It's main focus will be, as the name suggests, movies I see at the cinema.

I'll be putting my reflections on all the Wellington Film Society screenings I get to up on Cinema cope. I'll also comment - however briefly - on any other movies I see at the cinema (and maybe even the ones I watch on dvd or TV etc).

Generally, I'll post there at least once a week. Usually on a Tuesday for film society screenings (i.e. the day after the screening), or Sunday for general screenings. Or both - if you're lucky.

ETA: Actually, if you're really lucky, I might try to get to a general release movie on Thursday (the day they usually first hit the big screen) and review it that night. So ideally the posting schedule will be:
  • Tuesday for a review of the previous day's film society screening,
  • Thursday evening for a review of a new release,
  • Sunday for, say, a review of a film that's been out for a while.
 I'll generally try to post something on Sunday if I don't manage to make the Tuesday or Thursday postings.

23 October 2012

Are you old enough?

Recently, Philip Greatrex has written this piece for the NZ Herald in regard to lowering the voting age to 16 (drawn to my attention by James Sleep). It reminded me of this No Right Turn post from 2007 arguing in favour of extending the franchise.

I agree, for the most part, with their arguments. I would like to see the voting age lowered to 16.

As the commentor 'Mike' says on No Right Turn's post: "The idea that someone can have a family, a job, a house (unlikely, admittedly, but theoretically possible), be in the military and not vote to get representation is ridiculous."

 (I'll note for the record Your Honour, it's weird reading a NRT post with comments allowed.)

Discussing this on Twitter, Rachel Carrell made these counter arguments:

1) "16 seems very young. They haven't even finished high school. We knew nothing at 16

2) "I'm Labour member but @ 16 would have definitely voted ACT - entranced by simple answer"

Point 1 is the very generalisation that Philip Greatrex is trying to counter. I call this the 'Political Engagement' argument. I've known of well-informed 16 to 17 year-olds whose political opinions would be as valid as many an 'adult'. Also, I've known of ill-informed older people who I personally hope wouldn't exercise their franchise.

I'd be surprised to find that the sort of 17-year-old who "knew nothing" would suddenly become politically engaged at 18. In any case, as a democracy, we don't stipulate that political engagement is a condition of being a voter. If you're over 18 we don't care how ignorant or foolish you are, you have a say in the government that represents you. I'm not convinced that 18 is a special age of general political engagement.

As for Point 2, I wonder if this governs many people's view on this issue: "Shit, I would have made a dumb choice at 16!"

But where does that slippery slope stop? Someone may consider (as I do) that their libertarian view at age 18 or 19 was evidence of their entrancement to simplistic answers. This might well be the case, but we aren't about to argue for the increase in the voting age to 20, are we? What is the age of political wisdom?

I don't think lowering the voting age is a panacea, but I don't think it will be any kind of impediment to progressive politics.

UPDATE: At the 2012 Labour Party conference, delegates supported a motion that if the party comes to power, it will lower the voting age by two years to 16.

07 June 2012

Consequences: the Wellington Film Society March to April 2012

About a third of the way into this year’s Wellington Film Society schedule, and the selection almost seems themed, like some group art exhibition at the public gallery. The tone has been fairly dark, and the themes are frequently to do with consequences of your actions. There were three classic American noir films, where people getting what’s coming to them is often a feature. Nicolas Roeg’s bleak outback adventure Walkabout displays results of societal pressures of many kinds, and the two European films, The Skin I Live In and The Consequences of Love feature plenty of, well, consequences. In order of screening, here are the Film Society’s 2012 offerings from March and April, with my brief comments.

[Sans comments for two: I missed Wake In Fright, and I will review The Consequences of Love in a post of its own.]


The Skin I live In (La piel que habito)  Spain 2011
Antonio Banderas plays a brilliant plastic surgeon haunted by his past. Many of his achievements are a result of the experiments he conducts on Vera (Elena Anaya), a mysterious, beautiful woman held captive in his mansion.

By many accounts, Pedro Almodovar’s previous film, Broken Embraces, was a disappointment. I haven’t seen it, but if that’s right, he’s well and truly back on track with this gorgeous, kitschy yet unsettling surgical horror film. Almodovar’s usual concerns are on display again here, and his melodramatic and slightly surreal style is both immersive and sometimes a tad daft. The explanation for these proceedings is suitably deranged, and delivered not as a ‘gotcha’ twist at the end, but revealed like the unfurling of a bandage through the story’s middle act, allowing the audience to dwell on the events and the madness.

Mildred Pierce  USA 1945
Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford, in an excellent “comeback” performance) runs from a beach-front house after shots are fired and her estranged husband is murdered. Flashback shows how Mildred came to be in this position, after leaving her previous cheating husband and trying to raise her daughters on her own. (Based on the novel by James Cain.)

Underrated film noir that stands up to contemporary viewing better than the next two examples. While it has an essentially conservative outlook, the social anxieties of the time are nicely laid bare. It features an effectively contemptuous performance from Ann Blyth as Veda – one of the most grating spoiled brats ever put to the screen.

Wake In Fright  Australia 1971

I didn’t see this one, but it sounds pretty good.

The Postman Always Rings Twice  USA 1946
A drifter (John Garfield) arrives at diner owned by a genial, older man and his beautiful wife (Lana Turner). They fall in love and together they plot the murder of the husband.

Another good film noir based on a James M. Cain novel, although this one doesn’t hold up as well to modern viewing as Mildred Pierce. (It’s still better than the 1981 remake.) There’s a vulnerability to both leads, and a precariousness to their criminal plotting, that lends the movie an odd kind of authenticity. Despite that, there are also a few ‘Why did they do that? Why don’t they just do this?’ moments. It features good performances all round, especially from Turner and Hume Cronyn, whose devious defence lawyer may be my favourite part of the movie. There’s a good, thorough commentary from Nick Davis here.

The Asphalt Jungle  USA 1950
A criminal genius gets out of prison and plans one last heist. He gathers together the necessary team (safe cracker, tough guy, money man, driver), and everything goes according to plan. Except, not quite.

A very influential, archetypal crime caper movie, The Asphalt Jungle is probably a must watch for cineasts. So I’m glad that they played it, although it did have a slight sensation of being a chore. It’s got an effective atmosphere, and the untangling of the heist is nicely understated. It’s once again conservative in outlook, but engenders a degree of sympathy with the characters. However, it seems at times even more preachy than the other noirs shown so far. Relatedly, perhaps, it feels the most dated.

Walkabout  Australia 1971
After their father has a breakdown, a teenage girl and her younger brother are left stranded in the Australian outback. They eventually meet and receive assistance from an aboriginal boy on his ‘walkabout’ (a rite of passage where he spends some time separated from his tribe).

Walkabout is a fascinating, often misunderstood, slightly naive coming of age adventure. Jenny Agutter (most recently seen as a SHIELD council member in The Avengers) gives a strong performance, nicely balancing stoicism and vulnerability. The film seems to suggest mostly a strong element of cultural incommensurability, but also a hint of shared humanity, or at least parallels in, for example, matters confronting those “coming of age”.

This nuanced portrayal is to its credit, but it juggles its themes clumsily at times, coming across a bit ANTH 101. For example, in the first meeting between Agutter’s character and the aborigine (David Gulpilil) sees her trying thick-headedly to ask for water: “Water!  ... You must understand ‘water’!” she repeats to the uncomprehending aborigine. Then her brother mimes a drinking action and gets the point across. Agutter’s character wasn’t portrayed as ignorant or dim-witted in most of the film, but we’re supposed to believe that she thinks he simply must understand “water”, and it wouldn’t occur to her to mime the act of drinking.

Roger Ebert says the film is about “The mystery of communication”, and that’s true to a point. But ham-fisted scenes like this one make it almost feel didactic, rather than mysterious. And some of the stylistic editing just seems pretentious.

But mostly I agree with Ebert. Walkabout is mostly a nuanced film about culture and communication. Like The Consequences of Love, it’s able to say a lot without having characters that speak a lot. Walkabout is for the most part poetic, subtle, visually strong, and not a simplistic “noble savage good; modern life hollow” tale that some think.

The Consequences of Love (Le conseguenze dell'amore)  Italy 2004
Titta lives in a Hotel in Lugano, Switzerland. He’s been there almost ten years, spending his days drinking alone, occasionally playing cards, and waiting for a mysterious delivery, which in turn triggers a dash to the bank. Ten years of living an inscrutable life, one day he decides to offer a barmaid a smile.

This will get its own post soon. In the meantime, watch the beginning, with music by Lali Puna.

[This review was originally posted on Poplitiko.]

03 March 2012

The Pirates of Hollywood

[Sorry, this post has been edited a tad.]

As we all know, Kim Dotcom and other Masters of Evil Megaupload staff have been arrested, and are subject to proceedings to extradite them to the USA for trial.

With the Kim Dotcom/Megaupload affair being played out in New Zealand's legal system at the moment, I'll exercise the blog by linking to some essential reading.

Hypocrisy in Hollywood.


Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll admit to having a soft spot for this song. RIP Davy.

08 September 2011

Ask the people

Watching Back Benches last night, I was puzzled by Rahui Katene's view on the situation in Fiji.

"What's so great about democracy?" she asked fellow bencher Stuart Nash, as she made the case that democracy wasn't necessarily the right system for every nation, and we shouldn't try to impose it on Fiji as that would be bullying.

Katene did, however, think that the Fijians should be asked what they wanted. Presumably she thinks the whole adult population should be asked, and have an equal say. After all, if you only ask a limited segment, such as the group currently in charge or a specified ethnic group, then you're already prejudging how things should be run, which is what you want to avoid.

Perhaps Katene has in mind only a one-off consultation of the people, and thereafter they're stuck with whatever form of government and group of people they choose to run the place. But it would be an odd notion to value the view of the people only on a onetime basis, thereafter locking in whatever decision they made, even to later generations, no matter how the people they chose to lead them behaved. So more likely she has no objection to some kind of ongoing 'touching base' with the people she wants to consult.

So Katene wants some sort of repeated, universal consultation of the will of the people of Fiji in how their nation should be run, and who should run it.

While the operational details vary from case to case, there is a type of system that broadly fits what she's after.
It's called democracy.