BLITHE SPIRIT (2020)

A spiritualist medium holds a séance for a writer suffering from writer's block but accidentally summons the spirit of his deceased first wife which leads to an increasingly complex love triangle with his current wife of five years.

Blithe Spirit is a curious film that has a vibe not dissimilar to that of Murder on the Orient Express or Knives Out; a film that covers darker subjects (such as death and murder) but is portrayed in a manner that makes them more comical and lighthearted. A period piece that is visually vibrant to the point of being child-like, Blithe Spirit sits in the peculiar niche of being comprised of one-note characters and physical humour that appeal to the younger audience but also involves alcohol, drugs (more than a few jokes about amphetamines), and a fair amount of sexual humour. Pink Panther for mid-teens, if you will.

Keeping that in mind, Blithe Spirit is a reasonable comedy. The set and production design are immaculate. The sense of that early period with the facets of wealth intertwined into the condition, quality, and colour of the set pieces keeps things intriguing. 

However, if you consider the film for its comedic merit, it falls much shorter. Nine out of ten "funny moments" in the film are set up around a single style of humour; all reliant on our main character never being aware of his surroundings, and having his dialogue constantly taken out of context. The humour is amenable but garners diminishing returns as the film progresses. 

Continued use of the same schtick makes it abundantly clear that there is no real character development in play, and the payoff to each setup achieves less satisfaction. To younger audiences, this continued beating of a dead horse would be fine and still elicit laughs every time. Still, again, the jokes about amphetamines and implied sexual activities are not subtle enough to really want younger audience members exposed to it.

An aspect that did go down well, however, was the relationship between our main character Charles Condomine (portrayed by Dan Stevens) and his ex-wife Elvira Condomine (portrayed by Leslie Mann). Their relationship feels the most organic and transitions through the honeymoon period to a satisfying extent. It provides enough of a twist to the usual tropes and narratives that makes the inevitable conclusion of the film less predictable. Blithe Spirit does feel longer than its 96-minute runtime, with its one repeated joke doing very little to keep the pace flowing, and our main character Charles having a very passive role in the film. 

All of the acting performances are over-the-top, making Blithe Spirit quite faithful to the source material (Blithe Spirit is based on a 1941 play of the same name). This complete translation to the silver screen seems out of place and fails to make use of the cinematographical advantages that cinematic productions provide. All performances from the actors are given as if they still need to convey an emotion to someone sitting 300 feet away; no subtleties, and an energy that feels forced. 

Another element that does work to the advantage of the younger audiences to whom funny faces and over-exaggeration have a greater appeal. The supporting cast does an admirable job in driving the plot along and playing off of their opposing personality traits; Mann playing the sultry, seductive, passionate ex-wife, and Isla Fisher playing the spoiled rich daughter. Dame Judi Dench has the most potential in her role in the film but has very little to do.

Overall, the cinematic adaptation of Blithe Spirit, offers little in the way of anything new. The story and themes haven't changed since the 1940s; while the stories may have been fresh back then, the expansion of the entertainment industry has meant these themes and storylines are over-used and outdated. The characters are more like caricatures and lack any depth, but in a year that has left more than its fair share of people with a lot of worries, perhaps Blithe Spirit can provide that "shut-off-the-brain" entertainment, and give a little bit of harmless escapism. 

Blithe Spirit is in cinemas from December 26, 2020

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8763

A CALL TO SPY (2019)

 

At the dawn of World War II, a desperate Winston Churchill orders his new spy agency to train women for covert operations. Together, these female agents help undermine the Nazi regime in France, leaving an unmistakable legacy in their wake.

A Call To Spy strongly vibes with one of its biggest influences, 2016's Hidden Figures; taking a well-known part of history, and revealing another side of the story that was just as significant, but is a perspective that is yet to reach the mainstream. This isn't so much an increase in stories about the supporting positions to a larger story, but stories about women that have been previously pushed under the rug to make room for the men's stories. 

There is no hostility for past mistreatments, in fact, it is the constant ability of men to underestimate and misjudge women that have allowed this true story to occur. Women were able to actively sabotage Nazi Germany. 

This is a story about spies, but the representation is very well-grounded. These aren't women in glitzy gowns and men in tuxedos, drinking spirits, gambling with a villain at the poker table, avoiding lasers, and getting into car chases. This is about the beginning of espionage in an occupied and war-torn Europe. 

Not happy to look at the program when it had worked out the kinks, A Call To Spy covers the period of time when 1 in 3 spies were killed within six months, and they do not shy away from the human cost. Granted it could have been prudent to follow more than a couple of agents, to more accurately portray that human cost, but for a feature-length film, following two agents was more than enough content.

In fact, it was a little too much content. Following the stories of two agents, and their superior back in Britain, A Call To Spy is already bursting at the seams, trying to do justice to three stories. To a large extent, Sarah Megan Thomas does a great job on the script, compacting the three stories into a 124-minute runtime. 

Backstories and motives are succinctly provided, and any subplots and tangents are swiftly closed off to keep the film on target. Unfortunately, three stories still mean that the audience is being pulled from one scenario to the next, in a manner that prevents them from being able to become fully immersed in any of the stories.

It is unfortunate because these are highly dramatic stories. Virginia Hall, an American amputee with a wooden leg, worked for British Intelligence by forming resistance cells in occupied France. Noor Inayat Khan, a Muslim pacifist wireless operator turned field agent. Vera Atkins, a jew, unofficially coordinated the Special Operations Executive in Britain without rank or citizenship. 

The repetitive jumping between stories reduces their story to a highlight reel of successes or failures that don't allow the time for pressures or urgency to be organically developed; the audience simply skips on to the next plot point, ignoring the life-threatening situation that our heroines are currently in. 

With the script being written by Sarah Megan Thomas, and Virginia Hall being portrayed by the same Sarah Megan Thomas, it is no surprise to find that her character gets the bulk of the screentime, with Noor gaining little more than a token mention from time to time as the film progresses. 

Considering the importance of her role in the success of the resistance's operations, it is regretful to note that her character wasn't provided more than a cursory role in the film, especially when you consider the dangers that a woman of colour in Nazi-occupied-France would be in. 

Nevertheless, A Call To Spy does bring these women and their stories to light. With more content available online to learn about each of these women, A Call To Spy may not have a lot of actual spying in it, and the constant jumping between individual stories may slow the pacing down in the second act, but it will pique the interest enough to warrant further research into the matter.

A Call To Spy is in cinemas from December 26, 2020

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr878

AMUNDSEN (2019)

Roald Amundsen was the first researcher to reach both the North and South Poles. The British explorer Robert Scott was hot on his heels on the trip to the South Pole 1910-1911. The discoverers were in bitter competition with each other. Amundsen's expeditions were largely organised and financed by his brother Leon. However, there was constant conflict and conflict between the two.

I have little knowledge of the explorers and the North and South Poles. I know Antarctica has the South Pole and penguins, whereas the Arctic has the North Pole and polar bears. On visits to the Kelly Tarlton's aquarium in Auckland, I've seen replica cabins from Scott base, so the name Amundsen previously meant nothing to me, and yet here he is being portrayed in a film as one of the great explorers of the world. 

The film opens straight into the action with a forced water landing in the Arctic; a seemingly great start to a film about the first explorer to reach both poles. It does create a false impression of the film to come, however. Amundsen is not a gripping series of expeditions, fraught with danger and peril; instead, we are given excerpts of Amundsen's life through conversations with his brother. 

Like a poorly generated highlight reel, the important moments are there, but the context and development of characters and environment are missing, and there is an overwhelming amount of content around the relationships outside of the expeditions.

Focusing on the outside relationships does help to develop the character of our lead, Roald Amundsen, but it develops him into an unlikeable, uncharismatic, and cold person. With the expectations of dangerous adventuring through hostile ice environments that were alluded to in the opening scenes, the amount of time spent watching Amundsen flirt with married women and argue about racing vs science is disproportionate, leading to several lulls in the pacing of the film. 

This is exacerbated by the overall structure of the film, which starts moments from its conclusion but jumps back in time through a series of flashbacks. While a useful storytelling technique, the non-linear structure removes much of the tension, suspense, or any other form of emotional impact from what we are seeing. 

We flit from one expedition to another, being told through stories and dialogue how long and treacherous the expeditions were, but as members of the audience, we never get to feel it; years pass in minutes, and plot points are skimmed over to introduce the next series of plot points. 

The film tries to cover such a wide expanse of information about the man's 55 years of life, that it merely gets to mention the topic before it moves on to the next one. The film feels at least 30 minutes too long, and yet it doesn't spend enough time on things to allow the significance of them to sink in. A year and a half journey to the South Pole, and the realisation doesn't hit; four attempts to reach the North Pole across 8 years, and there is no sense of satisfaction.

There are intriguing elements to the film, and it does well to make you want to look into the topic further yourself; saving people from falling into glacial crevasses, polar bear attacks, racing motorized sleds with teams of sled dogs, there is so much that could have been properly developed, that this could have been a trilogy of expeditions. 

Amundsen is not action-oriented though and director Espen Sandberg seems set on giving as much exposition as possible, with little regard to how effectively it is displayed. Despite the jumpy structure and flat character development, the cinematography from Pål Ulvik Rokseth is well-executed. The icy landscapes feel real, and don't look like they were shot in the studio. 

What the film does well, is put forward a flawed character. Roald Amundsen isn't portrayed as an over-glorified hero; he loves married women, he lies, he is obsessed with being the first (not unlike commenters on YouTube), he has no sense of fiscal responsibility. A bitter man, who never receives the praise that he feels he deserves, at least not outside of Norway

Considering the historical context the first two acts will certainly pass on a lot of interesting information that could no doubt unlock a passion for educating yourself about polar exploration. Whether that is enough to warrant sitting through the entire film (especially the final act that doesn't know when to end). Mediocre execution of a monumental historical exploration, but until a better version is made, it's still worth a watch. 

Amundsen is in cinemas from December 10, 2020

PAPER CHAMPIONS (2020)

 

Paper Champions is an uplifting comedy about Rey, a young man who wants to find love despite having lost his 'Mana'.

When you see John Tui onscreen for a small comedy flick, you can't help but think you are in for a comedic treat. A stapling of international cinema he can be spotted in such blockbusters as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies, or smaller local Australasian films like the recent Savage and The Legend of Baron To'a. The Kiwi has that feel-good positivity and friendly aura about him that represents the Kiwi culture so well.

Despite the presence of John Tui, and a synopsis that revolves around the presence or absence of "Mana" (the spiritual life force energy or healing power that permeates the universe, in the culture of the Melanesians and Polynesians, which include New Zealand's Māori). 

Paper Champions is an Australian flick that has done the typical Australian thing of trying to copy something of ours and say it's theirs; in this case, trying to stake their claim on the overwhelmingly dry, awkward comedy style that Taika Waititi has brought into the mainstream media through Jojo Rabbit, Thor: Ragnarok, Eagle vs Shark, and What We Do In The Shadows.

Paper Champions is written by Luke Saliba, who also plays the role of the main protagonist, Rey, a character that looks like what you could be debatably described as a young Ray Romano's Ray from Everybody Loves Raymond. The similarity in the name alone--copied but changed slightly--along with his overly reserved demeanour and flat personality, gives the not-so-subtle suggestion that the film is but a compilation of things that have been wildly popular before, jammed together.

The script provides further evidence of this cobble-pot effect, with an absolute calamity of subplots that come and go with little regard to the flow of the story, or the cohesion of the plot. Take the plot of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, base the protagonist on your favourite 9-season sitcom, add in a recognisable New Zealand face, and some Australian talent, drown it in Waititi humour, and keep adding short comedy skits until your original short has become feature-length. 

Overly awkward sexual family plot? Check. Meek guy trying a competitive wrestling plot? Check. Romantic Interest plot? Check. Learning to dance plot? Unhappy with work plot? Check. Paper Champions is more of a compilation of skit ideas than a fully-fledged story. 

Where Waititi succeeds, is where this film stumbles; balancing the emotional storytelling with light-hearted comedy. There is so much of a passive, conflict-avoidant, apathetic nature to our main character that he becomes difficult to empathise with. 

The structure of a film is there, with a setup and a climax in the final act, but much of what happens in the middle is without major consequence, and as filling as a filler can get. The upside to this one-note performance from Saliba is that on the few occasions that Rey gets a bit of life in him and perks up, the film naturally improves with it. Unfortunately, those moments are few and far between.

Despite the clear path that Rey must take, Paper Champions is aimless, and the first two acts are a labour to endure. The final act does see some excitement, but after watching so many "funny" moments fail to hit their mark and go on far too long, this 83-minute film feels like someone jammed an extra hour in there somewhere. 

It's new, and there is some merit from a film-making perspective, but John Tui's huggable personality isn't enough to make this an enjoyable viewing to the mainstream audience.

Paper Champions is in cinemas from December 3, 2020

MISBEHAVIOUR (2020)

A group of women, a part of the Women's Liberation Movement, create a plan in order to disrupt the 1970 Miss World beauty competition in London.

It's been impossible to miss the change in direction of Hollywood films as of late. Women are getting more traction in film. Whether it be directing (Wonder Woman, Little Women, Portrait of a Lady on Fire), acting in the lead (The Old Guard, The Kitchen, Birds of Prey, Underwater), biopics (Radioactive, I Am Woman, Hustlers, Respect) or genderbending existing properties (Ocean's 8, What Men Want, Ghostbusters, The Hustle), the last couple of years has been churning out pro-women slogan left, right, and centre, but so many of them have been doing it wrong.

There has been a common theme of lashing out at men. I'm not about to spout a whole lot of #NotAllMen, but there is a way to properly tackle the topic of female empowerment; in a transparent and unbiased fashion. Misbehaviour is the first film that has really hit those marks effectively.

Misbehaviour isn't a film that attacks men. This is a film that attacks the behaviour of men, and that subtle difference is what makes this an intriguing and engaging viewing experience. Everybody loves an underdog story, and the female liberation movement has been a long-running uphill battle against the entire system that we all live in. 

Except it isn't quite so black and white (excuse the terminology) when it comes to the affected parties protesting the privileged parties. In essence, women are protesting against the way of life of the men who live in their very homes, and that makes this a much more sensitive topic to discuss.

Philippa Lowthorpe shows an impressive amount of finesse in working around the sticky points of the topic, ensuring all sides are covered without ever lecturing or demonizing either side. Misbehaviour's attack on the behaviour promotes personal growth and the understanding that a person with good intentions may unwittingly be oppressing someone, because this film isn't about exposing men to be the villains in another historical episode, purposefully holding back women for their own gain. 

This is about men misunderstanding and underestimating the value and abilities of women, and being resistant to change (resistance to change is something that everyone can understand). All this is done while artfully injecting small tidbits of comedy to keep the film feeling light and affirming.

The film, visually, is competently shot, with effective use of framing and zooming in during emotional moments. The era of the time is well demonstrated with some scenes shot through the aspect ratio and resolution of 1970's television, made for the old cathode ray televisions. A tasteful choice, as well, is the decision to not photoshop or over-glamorize the women competing in the show. 

The film is about arguably the most beautiful woman in the world, but the audience is allowed to see the women with sullen eyes, smoking, committing crimes, or with crow's feet, and insecurities. The most beautiful women in the world and they all have imperfections and "flaws". Nobody is perfect, and one cannot help but be impressed at how the film tackled every issue while allowing the audience to make up their own mind about who is in the right.

Keira Knightley is the lead, and yet, she is outshined by her supporting cast. Knightley's performances have been providing diminishing returns since her dazzling performance in Colette, and yet her wooden performance works to the advantage of the film, allowing the supporting cast to shine, especially the performance of Jessie Buckley, who absolutely stole the spotlight in every scene, thanks to her infectious attitude and energy.

This is the call to arms that I have been waiting for. A passionate yet level-headed offering of cinematic bliss, that is able to invoke frustration, anger, and disgust at past "allowed" behaviours, without pointing the finger. 

A truly intriguing part of history, the story ends with you wanting more; luckily the epilogue does let us know what happened to most of the people involved in the 50 years that have since passed. This is a film that successfully manages to balance comedic, dramatic, and educational elements in a powerful manner that raises the question of a woman's true value. If I had a daughter, this would be the film I would want her to see and be inspired by.  

Misbehaviour is in cinemas from December 3, 2020