Alright. This map was a bloody nightmare to make. In the first season the show-makers ‘gave’ me a simple newspaper map and some clues.
Now, in the second season they spring a gigantic map upon me with a sudden river, some railways out of nowhere and three of four lakes within the town!
I’m guessing that the creative department took a real map from somewhere and just pasted the name ‘Hawkins’ on it. But for me; my little ditty map suddenly became a full 500% larger.
Even though I can’t remember most of my reasoning from last year I assume that most of my placements of buildings and homes then are still pretty accurate. It’s just that my first map has to be placed somewhere in the ‘new’ BIG map. Time to go puzzling.
The technical ranting (you can skip this bit if you wish)
There are two maps of Hawkins shown this season. First there is the police map in episode 3. This map is only partial but it shows the locations of the pumpkin farms and the laboratory.
Then there’s the full map of Hawkins in episode 5 when Bob is figuring out the location of sheriff Hopper.
The first thing to notice is that this second map is flipped in comparison to the police map. The heart-shaped lake is suddenly north, whilst on the police map it was south. But that’s easily fixed.
The real problem is that the police map and Bob’s map don’t line up. They both have the ‘heart shaped lake’ but the police map also (suddenly) has an additional lake next to it.
Then there’s the problem when you try to combine these two maps with the map from season one; they don’t line up either.
In short, it is safe to say that, cartography isn't the main thing this television show is banking on.
So, to be honest, this map of mine should, by all accounts, be considered fan-fiction. I did try to take the things I learned from this show as fact. But since I had to make so many educated guesses I'll never be sure whether or not I am right. So the basis is what is given in the show (like a puzzle). The rest is my own making.
Also keep in mind that the show sometimes shows actual streetnames from the town where it was shot.
So this map is part guesswork, part based on the narrative of the show and part grounded in reality.
I just hope that those silly Duffer brothers will read this blog and make my job (as the unofficial cartographer of Hawkins) a bit easier next year by sticking to this map. Pretty please with sugar on top!
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this new interpretation of Hawkins Indiana. It took me a while. But I think, it works. The full version is here (link).
In the desolate German town of Winden a child goes missing. While the authorities try to solve the case they stumble upon more questions than answers. A lot of those question have to do with the shady dealing of the local nuclear power plant that stood ground since 1953!
After Stranger Things the combination of mystery and nostalgia have taken quite a leap in popular televised fiction. The easy way of combining the two (something Stranger Things tries desperately to evade) is to bring in time travel. But how does one write such a story? Leave it up to the German entertainment industry to take it all a step further. To bring it to: Dark.
I really like this show. True, -in good Game of Thrones-fashion- it took me a while to get all the relationships and characters right in my mindset. But the season worked; that is, until the last episode.
I had to double-check these family relations because
–at one time- I was suspecting incest.
Like Game of Thrones the very first episode brings a lot of information to the table. But once you grasp it all (again, taking a minute to figure it all out) Dark, gleefully, makes it more difficult: The show brings in time travel and different actors playing younger versions of other characters.
In short it is a lot to wrap your mind around!
Dark is a science-fiction show that uses – in our current post-post-modernist time- each and every trope used in previous science fiction/time travel stories to its benefit.
But that doesn’t make this story: ‘been there, done that!’. In fact, in the hands of ‘Ze Germans’ it creates a rather impressive work of –would I dare say it-: art.
Repeating something doesn’t make it unoriginal
Being critical one could say that Dark has paid close attention to other hit mystery-shows like Twin Peaks and Stranger Things (and movies/books like: Miss Perigee home for peculiar children and Looper). This is undoubtedly true. Filling the bleak -constantly cold and raining- town of Winden with an array of unique characters who are all keeping secrets is the blueprint that Twin Peaks left behind.
Then there is the whole 80s vibe this show plays with (a dartboard with the bullseye pushed out.
Satanism and the way that was thing back then.
The fact that Germany has (in reality) several mines filled to the brim with radioactive waste. It’s about time we shoot those barrels into space.
And several others I probably missed.
This is a direct result of the current nostalgia-hype the western world has been living in for the last ten years (it started around Super 8 and the Indiana Jones-sequel and came to fruition with Stranger Things).
So one could definitely say that Dark doesn’t offer anything new.
This is absolutely true!
But me, being a person who has seen over two-hundred sci-fi-time-travel-movies (and series)- argue this: We are currently living in 2018. Every little way of telling stories has been done before. In fact it is quite astonishing that moviemakers still manage to find some unique way of telling tales.
Like screenmovies as Unfriended.
There’s nothing wrong with reusing a storytelling technique or motive and making it your own. Quentin Tarantino lives by that motto.
I argue, that, concerning Dark. As a show it uses various elements from famous international predecessors but at the same time it places a big stamp on it which reads: made in Germany. And that’s what makes it special: It’s a German show all the way through!
German nostalgia In a sense it is fitting that this tale –which has a large chunk taking place in the 1980s- was made in Germany. Dark underlines its country of origins every chance it gets. There’s the obvious European acceptance of nudity (or homosexuality). The critical stance on Communism and religion. The ‘out of the way’ this show goes not to have certain characters in the past talk about their experiences during the second world war. Or in fact making it a (plot) point that Germany has a multitude of old bomb shelters.
But most of all Dark highlights that Germans are a rather nostalgic kind of people (just google 'Ostalgie').
It’s been written about before by various scholars how Germans use mainstream media to accept or learn from history. Movies like Er is wieder da, der Untergang or Holocaust managed for German people to come to (somewhat) terms with their part in the bloodiest chapter of the 20th century. Then there are movies like Goodbye Lenin and now Dark that look back at Germany just before the re-unification. A period in history wherein the eyes of the world were set on this European country.
Everything happened in Germany back then: music, art, spying and sabotage, terrorism. And this exiting rumbling decade eventually concluded in the joining of the halves of the country. Germany and nostalgia go hand in hand as it were. So setting a time travel story there…
It’s as German as it can get.
Why do the people in this show keep on picking up dead birds?
Maybe it’s because I had a cat that I can’t understand them – no thank you!
On another note: what is it with German cinema and kidnapping/ Childmurder?
Es geshah am hellichten tag, M. Why is that?
Timetravel – yeah baby!
I love, LOVE time travel. It’s one of the nerdy things about me that I am more than willing to admit to (I won’t admit to the fact that I also enjoy growing vegetables in my garden).
Overall, in movies (and TV-shows) there are three forms of time travel which can each be explained by ‘the grandfather paradox’
The grandfather paradox is the idea that you travel back in time and kill your own grandfather. With grandfather dead you would never been born in the first place to travel back in time and kill your grandfather: thus a paradox is created. Three theories that explain this conundrum:
Explanation one: time ceases to exist. The whole of the universe collapses on itself. Game over!
Though I do think this is a bit arrogant to assume that one little misguides speck of stardust can cause eternity to tumble down.
But it is something movies like to play with.
Explanation two: You simply cannot kill your grandfather. The gun jams, you kill the wrong person. You name it. The past cannot be altered.
Explanation three: You created an alternative timeline the minute you time travelled. So go right ahead and kill the man since you’ll still exist in your own timeline anyway.
All three of these explanations are used in movies all the time. The trick is to pinpoint what theory a movie uses. The time machine is a big fan of number 3, while its remake toys with number two. Back to the future, then, is a big believer in number one. So where does this place Dark?
Dark uses the notion of an unchangeable past. In that sense the title is rather fitting: it’s not very pleasant to realize that whatever happens – you can’t change it.
I loved the time-jokes: 2019 mobile phones - nobody answers.
1986 normal phones -everybody picks up (but nobody answers the door).
A glitch in the matrix A glitch in the Matrix is in Dark explained (as it was in the Matrix) as having a Déjà vu in a simulation.
But currently the term is also used for the Mandela-effect. Now before I delve into this I need to explain something about myself: I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist. Nessie could be real or not. Bigfoot could be real or not. JFK could have been shot by one man or twelve. And Hitler might have survived ‘til 1953 (or 1956 depending on the theory).
But I do enjoy reading about it. It’s a what if scenario. A conspiracy theory is a puzzle you will never find a satisfying answer to.
But the Mandela-effect is a bit different to me. Because I actually experienced this effect. In short the effect is that lots of people on this earth remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980s and not in 2013. They remember it vividly. Some even claim that they used to have the news coverage of his burial on VHS-cassette- which became ‘magically’ erased.
The same goes for other things like: berenstain bears, sex and the city and monopoly (so yes – usually it involves pop-culture).
So why would people all over the world not only remember things differently? But also the exact same different thing?
This is where the theory becomes supernatural: that somewhere around 2001 an alternative timeline was created in which we now live. Yet some (special) people still remember stuff from the previous timeline; a glitch in the Matrix.
Now, for, my experience is that I’m willing to swear that I saw a news item about the death of the actor Richard Chamberlain. Yet, the dear chap is still alive (quite a shock when I suddenly saw him in I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry).
So what is this? The news not checking the facts? Aliens? Government influence? Mr. Smith having a laugh? Or maybe, down to earth, it’s a form of mass hysteria or just something neurological – the way people remember things from their childhood differently.
I don’t know the answer. Although I assume it to be a trick of the brain if not for that fact that I’m pretty sure that Aliens won’t bother changing the name of the Berenstein bears.
But I do enjoy reading about it. As I do about Nessie and Bigfoot.
No more dillydallying: The actual review Like Game of thrones before it Dark’s biggest challenge for the audience is not the twists and turns of the plot but rather keeping the families apart. I for one had to take a second to write down the various characters for the relationships to become clear.
But once you’ve wrapped your mind around that you have a marvellous time-travel mystery to figure out.
There isn’t a real main character in this show. It’s rather more a collection of several people who come together in the end. Jonas and Ulrich are the characters with the most screen time but even they are sometimes skipped over for an episode or two to focus on the other going-ons.
Still each and every actor brings his or her best to the table no matter how small the part is (like Mikkel’s brother not having a lot to do for instance). What I found refreshing is that basically everybody is a bit unlikable in this series – even the children.
A nice thought Dark plays with is not the fact that parents don’t try to keep their children safe.
But rather that the children themselves are too pigheaded to listen.
Also, why is it that psychiatrists in movies always have the greatest personal problems?
But that does make them full people. Hardly anybody smiles – except at the expense of another it seems. This is something the depressing tale needs.
Depressing Dark certainly is. The mere premise requires several children getting murdered in this show (not to mention the bird and sheep autopsies). It’s a bold startingpoint that Dark accepts without sugar-coating it.
The first five episodes then are all about stacking questions. Only then the show slowly turns to answering them. Good characters become villains and villains become good characters. But – by that time- you also start rolling your eyes about the secrets people keep keeping from each other.
That’s the only true issue I have with this show: the stretched out time it takes before answering the suspicions of the viewer. Usually bench watching a show has the additional benefit that you don’t have enough time to figure things out on your own. However, in Dark this was/is not the case. More than once I had one of the sub-mysteries figured out episodes before the characters did. Not because I’m such a brilliant person but rather because Dark doesn’t offer a lot of alternative possible answers. Dark is pretty straightforward in its solving of the mysteries, thus it becomes frustrating if you know the answers before the characters figure it out.
Dark also tends to get a bit highbrow at time.
Referencing Goethe (his famous novel of course: Faust which featured a pact with the devil)
or Ariadne betrayal of her father as she helps Theseus through the labyrinth.
But then again it never feels forced.
Dark is well shot and directed. There are nice little visual clues here and there –like a book cover reading ‘1983’ in the screen at the precise moment when the time travel plotline is introduced. Or the continuous flickering of the lights at specific times. And, of course, the cinematography makes good use of the (in joke) that each and every episode somebody enters the cave. Using the camera to highlight disorientation and claustrophobia as a means of underlining the character’s motivation works wonders.
I do wish to take my hat off to the Winden police department; searching a cave but not finding a box full of lanterns?
I especially enjoyed the grey bleak colour pallet this show uses. Dark isn’t a happy tale (and like Seven it’s constantly raining to underline the hopelessness) and it doesn’t let the viewer forget that.
In the end Dark ends with a bit of a unneeded twist. This is understandable from a continuing perspective. But it is also a bit frustrating as certain questions remain unanswered. This first season of Dark doesn’t end all wrapped up. There are strands left – underused characters (the 2019 teenagers) and some mysteries that haven’t been fully answered.
What are the lingering question then? For me the following (slight spoiler):
I won't put a spoiler tag before these because nobody who hasn't seen the show will be able to understand what I'm talking about.
How did the boy suddenly vanish?
How does the redhead girl and her money box fits into it
all?
Is there a character in 2019 from the past (or future)?
Who is Noah really?
What’s with that pocket watch that said: Charlotte?
Is there a way to prevent all the kids from dying?
How many kids died?
What happened to that policeman’s eye?
And many, many others.
Conclusion
Dark is German television at its best. It takes the tropes of other (American) time travel shows and movies and makes it its own. Dark is a German science fiction story that doesn’t shy away to show some true darkness in the hearts of men.
In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make
a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and
definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool
songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the
tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.
Every once in a while I will select a general
topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly
movies are at the start of the day, but when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please
feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.
One rule though: Auteur themes like
‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.
Theme: Time machines.
For this entry I
wanted to focus on time travel by use of a time machine. Naturally there are a
whole lot of time travel movies out there; but when you ask a person they
usually can’t remember anything other than Back to the future (which I left out
of this list). So here are several noteworthy time travel movies.
08:00-10:00
The blue yonder: A boy
wants to meet his grandfather and save him from an airplane disaster. A Disney
feel good as only Disney can make them.It’s very hard to find nowadays but if you do you will be rewarded with Peter
Coyote at his absolute charming (for all the kids who hated the guy in E.T.).
10:00-12:00 Bill and Ted’s
excellent adventure: EXCELLENT. I always preferred the sequel. But that
doesn’t mean that this first outing doesn’t has its charms. Just seeing those
historical figures going wild in an ‘80s mall or old Abe Lincoln being awesome.
It’s just so much silly fun.
12:00-14:00
Time bandits:I
honestly believe that movies aimed at children are far more brutal than
anything horror can deliver. Time bandits is the ultimate example with one of
the strangest endings I ever had to witness. But apart from that this is one
great adventure ride from beginning to (almost) end.
14:00-16:00
The time machine: The
true classic. Based on the original book by H.G. Wells (and actually a rather
accurate adaptation) it tells the ongoing tall of upper and lower classes. But
there’s more: The Time machine uses various movie tricks to ‘speed up’ time.
It’s an effects movie that actually still holds up today. Now let’s all just
pretend that this movie was never remade –ever.
On the Dvd extras
the original actors of this movie did a little scene set (obviously
– based on
their age) several decades after the original movie.
It’s actually a rather fun
scene that enriches the original movie.
16:00-17:00
Time after time: Jack
the Ripper versus H.G. Wells – that’s all you need to know.
Plus it features
Mary Steenburgen – that woman has a soft spot for time travellers.
It is a charming
little thriller of a man out of his dept/time trying to defeat an ruthless
evil. The ending might be a bit convenient but that’s only one nitpick of a
classily made good-guy chasing bad-guy routine.
17:00-19:00
The Avengers: Season
5, Episode 3 Escape in Time:
I’m cheating with this
one (Spoiler: no real time travel) but because this is my absolute favourite
episode of the Avengers I’m putting it in. A crook sells other criminals the
possibility to hide from the heat in the past. Once there those poor buggers get murdered by the forefathers of the crook. Steed and Peel go to
investigate.
19:00-21:00
Primer:The modern-day
classic and a great mindf*ck nmovie. Three men invent a time machine for
their own financial gain. Soon they realize that the power they hold is more
than they –or their friendship- can bear.
21:00-23:00
Timecop: The muscles
from Brussels in one of his most charming roles. He actually gets to act a bit
in this one which is nice. As always a good good versus bad movie depends on
the leads. Jean Claude van Damme is wonderful as our ‘goody two shoes’ and Ron Silver is brilliant as the villain. A villain with one of the most
memorable sociopathic quotes in movie history: "What's the big deal? Point it, pull the trigger... and, boom, somebody dies".
23:00-01:00 Twelve monkeys: Time
travel bureaucracy. I always enjoyed how strange the powers that be are in
this movie - as they sent poor Bruce Willis into the past.
Apart from Bruce and
the (absolutely bonkers brilliant) Pitt it is also one of the few time travel
movies that actually manages to slot into place. In the end you, the viewer,
realize the bigger picture. It’s not something the director Terry Gilliam likes
to do often but by doing so here he has managed to create his most accessible movie.
01:00-03:00 Time crimes: A nice
little time travel movie that borrows heavily from the concept of ‘recurring
events’. I like it a lot. Mainly because in the end it all fits so nicely (like Triangle
does).A man goes to investage something he didn't quite see through his binoculars and then everything becomes strange.
Honorable mentions: Back to the future - Of
course I have to mention this one. But since the trilogy is so well known
(rightfully so)I decided to go for the
more obscure ones.
When the New York Times
runs an article based on some highly flammable material concerning the United
States governments and the ongoing Vietnam War they are forced by the justice
department to cease. The Washington Post then gets a chance to continue where
the Times left off. Showing the United States of America where free press
stands for.
Even when Spielberg
makes a small movie he brings in his top guns. Tom Hanks and Merl Streep this
time round.
And Michael Stuhlbarg who managed to appear in
almost every nominated movie this year. Quite the positive career-move.
Hanks is his usual
down to earth persona. He doesn’t deviate far from his usual motive as he did
in (for instance) Charlie Wilson’s war. Streep then takes on a slightly awkward
accent that took me some time to get used to. However, when she casts her well
known spell on the screen she sucks you in by depicting this strong but
doubting woman in a male world.
Yes there are
feminist motives in this movie but they didn’t feel forced to me. Rather –as
the dialogue has it – that was the time, the situation.
The post is a
journalistic movie by the numbers. But I would certainly argue that this movie
is far better (as a movie) than Spotlight ever was. To this day I still can’t
really wrap my mind around the concept of how connecting the dots after finding
some documents in your own basement makes for a good journalist movie. Especially
since cases had already come to light abroad. I think it was the horrendousness
of the crimes that sold that movie instead of the journalistic angle.
Spotlight, therefore,
to me isn't a great movie - it's a sign of the times.
The post proves once
again the best and worst of Spielberg as a director. To get the worst out of
the way first: the overtly sentimental scene near the end that’s all
‘Amuricah’. It brings shivers and not in the good way. But that’s Spielberg for
you and the only true thing that bothered me (though I’m sure anti-liberals are
going to hate this movie – I hope they do).
Like any journalist
movie The post creates the tension from the ‘should we publish?’-angle. In an
awe-inspiringly shot four-way-telephone-call-scene Spielberg shows the mastery
of his craft.Forget about a
Velicoraptor entering the kitchen this scene is on the same level. The first
hour the movie ups the stakes, letting the audience know what these charming
characters have to lose and then bring them right to the edge. The movie is
built around this scene.
In that sense The post
isn’t a complete movie. It’s a movie that hammers home the message of freedom
of press. But we all know that the better story on that subject –especially set
during Nixon’s presidency- has already been made: All the president’s men.
Spielberg knows this
too. I’m not spoiling anything by telling you what event is depicted in the
end-scene. Rather The post is Spielberg flexing his muscles on a smaller scaled
movie. A well acted drama that doesn’t take the big story for a change. This
allows him (and the movie) to focus on characters and their work related (never
quite personal) struggles.
So that’s the duality
I have about this movie: it’s well acted and greatly directed, but, in the end,
feels a bit lacking. I can’t rid myself of the feeling that this movie is the ‘prequel’ to All the president’s men.
But then what am I
complaining? In the constant high quality genre of journalist movies The post
ranks right at the top.
One of the
consequences of Kevin Spacey’s wrongdoings is that he got himself fired from
Netflix’s House of cards. This consequence is what I’m going to use as a coat
rack to hang this article upon. Let’s start with a critique.
House of cards wasn’t
very good anymore.
I wrote about this
problem before: any story is about the road travelled. Once the destination is
reached the story is over. That’s why TV-shows like the Walking dead keep on
putting our heroes in danger.
The destination in
House of cards was the presidency. After that the show became: keeping the
presidency. You might have an interesting sidetrack or two like America/Russia
relations but a show should never lose track of the main destination.
So House of cards
season one and two was about getting the presidency. Season three was about
getting re-elected. But by then the nasty deeds Frank Underwood had committed
along the way should have come to haunt him. Instead the seasons after opted for all
kinds of shenanigans (even getting him shot –more about that later). It started
dragging – the show runners had lost track of the destination. In fact, I
believe, they bypassed the destination.
In this sense the
firing of the main character/actor/star might be a blessing in disguise.
Bring on the first
lady.
Regardless of whether
or not you liked Hillary Clinton or not; the fact that she lost the
presidential race begs the question: did she lose because she is a woman?
Now, I don’t really
believe this. But still this element of gender (and male dominance) is something the show could 'play around with'. The notion that a woman can never become president unless a man 'allows' her (by dying or something).
In House of cards it was always Claire Underwood who, like a lady Macbeth,
urged her husband on behind the scenes. She was the one who wanted the main prize –willing to
suggest anything to get it. She was, in fact, the one pulling his strings. So with Frank Underwood gone Claire gets her moment to shine. Which could become bittersweet when the sins of her husband come to haunt her (a woman taken down by a man).
Just watch the
original.
I am one of the last
people who, sometimes, buys DVD’s. Last week I bought the original House of
cards series. I can tell you right off: this BBC production is superior to the
American version in almost every way.
Apart from the
ring-knocking.
The main reason being
that the United Kingdom still has a king or queen who can get in the way. So
ensuring the presidency (or becoming prime minister) isn’t the endgame: one
could still become king.
Our ‘Urquhart’ doesn’t
become king. But he’d be damned if he doesn’t become the longest reigning prime
minister in British history.
Three seasons, that’s
all it took to tell this tale. And, to be honest, the third season is the
weakest of the bunch. But it does build up to the inevitable finale that every
viewer wants. It is truly that perfect (if, not, a bit expected).
Basically the American House of cards went on after season three (the final season) of the original
show ended. And, for me, it didn’t pan out – it didn’t work. Now that Frank Underwood is
gone it might. With Claire at the reigns the next season of House of cards
might continue fresh where the original British version stopped.
A blessing in disguise?
Sometimes, something
can be a blessing in disguise. With Spacey out of the picture House of cards
is now focussed solely on the character of Claire Underwood. A female powerhouse.
But how long can she hold on until the sins of her husband (and her
own) bring her down?
After the death of the
absolute leader of the communist party of the Soviet Union: Joseph Stalin a
power struggle starts between the chief of the secret police: Lavrenti Beria
(Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi).
Being an European I was
never truly raised in the absolute anti-communist environment of the (let’s
say) post-McCarthyism United States. We looked at the Soviet Union with
interest –it being our neighbours and it having nuclear weapons. So something
to be wary of.
It was only really
after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumble of the Soviet empire that the
stories of the gulags and the secret police started to rise to the surface.
This time (rather) unfiltered by any propaganda agenda. So it was only in my
late teens that I learned of Stalin’s iron control of the Soviet republic.
In this sense I
consider myself more objective when I read about the Soviet Union’s history; I
was old enough to understand the motivations behind the actions/crimes without
any preliminary childhood opinion forced upon me: a blank canvas if you will.
The death of Stalin,
then, is an intriguing movie because it isn’t –per se- an accurate history
lesson (as no movie can be) but rather a, hilarious, view on political twists
and turns in an absolute dictatorship. Taking on this perspective it shows how
fear and ambition can go hand in hand. It’s an unique movie that, in the hands
of lesser storytellers, could easily have gone awry. Yet this movie manages to
make an impressive dark comedy about one of the darkest chapters of human
history; a tremendous feat.
Dark history:
hilarious
When I watched Thor
Ragnarok recently I was having a blast. It was only after the credits rolled
that I realized that this movie is quite the bloodbath.My latest count estimates that, during the
running time of this movie, over a million people die on screen. Yet the movie
is hilarious. Why is this? Two simple reasons really. You could call them
comedy scriptwriting rules one and two: ‘Don’t show the mayhem in all its
bloodiness’ and ‘don’t linger on the grieving aftermath’.
It’s the old
anecdote of Stanislavski, Chekhov and the cherry orchard.
That’s why comedies
can make of the most outlandish things happen to characters.Home Alone’s (1990) criminals Harry and Marv
should have died several times over in this movie due to Kevin’s traps yet they
brush it off as if it is nothing. This makes a comedy hilarious.
The death of Stalin
does the exact same thing; a few thousand people die one screen in this movie.
Yet the movie doesn’t linger. The storytellers tell up front that this is a
terrible time the movie is taking place in (in a small role the, always great,
Paddy Considine underlines this) and then they introduce us to the main
players: of which each and every character is a terrible person. So you don’t
really care what happens to them. And you expect the bloodshed dripping through
the nation. It’s a fine line but The death of Stalin manages it.
Dark characters
The only two
–somewhat- ‘good’ guys are Buscemi’s Khrushchev and Palin’s Molotov. But anyone
who knows his/her history knows that ‘good’ here is a lucid term.
Buscemi only comes
across as the ‘good’ guy because an audience happens to identify with the
protagonist. So Khrushchev’s ‘goodness’ is a direct result of his screen time.
The absolute villain
then is Beale’s power-hungry Beria. Not because he’s much different from the
other characters in his motivations and backstabbing but rather because the
audience actually sees him get his hands dirty.
Again a tried and
tested movie trick.
Each and every single
actor is having an absolute blast playing the cleverly written scenes that
ranges from physical comedy of running towards Stalin’s grieving daughter to be the first to
comfort her to quick-fire dialogues filled to the brim with venom.
I, as a lifelong Monty
Python fan, was especially pleased to see a relaxed Michael Palin on screen.
Playing his role very straight in bizarre situations is a feast for the eyes.
Then there are Jason Isaacs playing opposite Jeffrey Tambor in contrasting
roles. Isaacs plays the confident trigger-happy field Marshal of the Soviet
army Zhukov with such grandiose arrogance that it highlights Tambor’s wavering
Malenkov (who is in fact Stalin’s replacement and thus the new ruler).
It is this contrasting
of characters that makes The Death of Stalin such a delightful viewing. Each
and every character is a bastard. There are tricks pulled to make one a bit
more likable over the other but in the end they are still bastards.
Red imaging
Armando Lannucci has
always been more a writer than a director. His words matter and the imagery
underline the words. The same goes for the Death of Stalin that does very
little with the camera like a Spielberg of Cuaron would do. In this sense it
could easily become a stage-play.
Nevertheless the movie
looks brilliant by highlighting both the grandeur of the communist party (in
the colours red and white, with large rooms) and the backstabbing secret side
(black and grey, small rooms). It’s a simple way of telling a story in visuals
that always works.
Dark comedies: thin
ice
Dark comedies are
difficult to make; especially when they deal with real life histories. La vita
e bella was one that managed by allowing the balance to flip in favour of drama
in the last act. The death of Stalin challenged itself by staying a comedy
throughout (even in the gruesome last act). This third act might not work
completely in this sense. But, then again, I considered it a nice wakeup call
that I was in fact watching a re-telling of real events from history.
It’s great to laugh
about Hitler in the producers or Er ist wieder da. But never forget what he
did.
That’s the power dark
comedies have over ‘normal’ ones.
Conclusion
The death of Stalin is
a brilliant piece of writing that (I expect) wouldn’t be misplaced in a stage
outing as well. It has witty dialogues and a great cast bringing the words. That
fact that the time this movie plays with is one of the darkest times in 20th century
history is a daring choice that could easily have gone wrong. The fact that The
Death of Stalin works so well is because it never forgets to show the darkness
of the times and the characters. It might float over it and bring it a bit more
tongue-in-cheek than an all-out drama would do; but it doesn’t let the audience
forget it.
A year ago I had some
fun with a little project of mine concerning movies as rollercoaster (link). And to tell you the truth: I really enjoyed the project; just me
having some silly fun.
So, as I´ve promised
myself in another post (which has the parts: link) here are three new ´movies as roller coasters´.
A family of four
return home after a well earned vacation. Little do they know that they are
going to be the main contestants of a macabre online reality show. Who will
survive – you’ll only find out if you…
Troubled movie
releases
Every once in a while
you get a movie with a rather suspicious release.
Take this movie for
instance. This movie was shot years ago. Back then it was called Home invasion
(a title change- the first clue that something is amiss). But since then it’s
been shelved. Originally this movie was set to come out in 2016.
Another movie that
follow this same path is the between/ don't let me go made in 2013 (another title
change). That little girl from Orphan (Isabelle Fuhrman) tried some drama after
her turn in horror – never released so far.
This isn’t always
a bad thing mind you. The cabin in the woods was shelved for years before somebody
realized the cult-status gold that this movie is (or maybe the distributer
thought they could bank on Chris Hemsworth –Thor- fame).
But at least with the
Cabin in the woods the distributors decided to go all out and give the movie a
theatrical release. Keep watching only got a small release in March direct on
DVD. Like the studio is ashamed of this movie and wishes to get rid of it.
They shouldn’t be
ashamed; Keep watching is a perfectly fine movie and actually rather intriguing
in its genre.
Not a themed release?
If a studio or a
distributer doesn’t have enough fate in a movie they tend to churn it out with
very little fanfare. But at least they release it at the right moment. Take
Better watch out (2016) for example. A nice take on the home-invasion during
Christmas movie (yes there are several) but nothing fancy. Of course this movie
got released around Christmastime.
I blame this movie
for not going all out as The Babysitter (2017) did.
Instead it stayed well
between the lines of horror, comedy and thriller
making it a rather predictable
and forgetful mix -with only the acting
and the last five minutes being a bit
more interesting.
What joy would we have had if we had a true no hold barred
horror-movie?
Why wasn’t Keep
watching released around Halloween? Why the March drop after all the time on the
shelve?
The actual review
Keep watching is a
fine movie but not a great movie; not by a long shot. Script wise all the
classic tropes are there front and centre: archetype (cannon fodder)
characters, invincible villains, the flee-fight-overcome story arch and so on.
Then there are plain and simple errors like: dropped plotlines, spontaneous
stupidity, sudden lack of empathy and many, many more.In short: you have to accept that Keep
watching is your average horror/thriller going in.
You might even begin
to suspect that this movie has been recut.
That would explain why the ending
comes across so out of sync with what came before it.
The cast
There is quite the
interesting cast in this picture. Here we have a professional ghost hunter, a
zombie slayer and Captain Fantastic all in one family. And each of the actors
try to make do with the scarce material they are handed. But, of course, this
movie is truly Bella Thorne’s show.
Thorne has built quite
the resume when it comes to horror. Playing a creepy child in Forget me not and
then, gradually, moving on to use the Disney image people have of her to her
advantage by getting sliced and diced as she did in the Scream premier and The
Babysitter.
In Keep watching she
actually gets to act normal for a change. Not those over the top near hysteria
her roles often require her to do, which is a nice change. But, alas, it isn’t
her acting that’s the main reason for Bella’s casting. The girl spends most of
the movie running around in skimpy sleepwear.
The gimmick
But if the script is
mediocre and the acting unchallenging then what makes this movie worth watching?
The technology used.
We have grown quite
accustomed to the 'found footage'-genre over the years. And the interesting
thing about this genre is that it evolves as technology evolves. From one
single camera in The Blair witch project we now have movies comprised of
various sources ranging from smartphones, drones and even traffic cams because
video recording has become easier over time.
Keep watching then
takes this all one step further. In this movie an entire house is filled to the brim
with hidden cameras (as horror movies and thrillers often do). Just twenty years
ago this amount of cameras was a science fiction joke in The Truman show. But
now it is actually possible. Keep watching takes something that is possible and
takes the next possible step.
Though I have to
admit that the amount of cameras is ludicrously large.
Cinematographically
this concept of letting the movie be recorded by hidden camera all around the house
is a nice gimmick the movie plays with. Apart from the added layer of
‘realness’.
And in the
Hitchcockian sense of Rope this movie breaks its own rules on one or two occasions.
E.g.
the focus on the child’s drawing.
Cinematography
Keep watching has a
lot of fun ‘hiding’ these cameras in microwave ovens, clocks and ceiling fans.
This offers quite a selection of interesting shots that aren’t constantly being
shaken about as it would normally in a found footage movie.Moreover, the light used and the mise-en-scene
in some of these shots bring are quite brilliant (Like, a spider walking around
in front of the camera or a reflexion in a magnifying glass).
To sidetrack a bit, I
would also argue that Keep watching also makes fun of its own concept in a meta
sense as there are cameras all around the house except the bathroom (or
the spots in the bathroom that matter). On the one hand it feels like the
filmmakers are making the point of questioning voyeurism and violence. On the
other it shows that the filmmakers are having all kinds of fun trying to hide
all the bits and pieces. A strategically placed faucet knob for instance reminded me of Metal Gear Solid 2's drinking cup.
A final fun trick Keep
watching uses are the various crosses.
ahhh so that’s why
the dialogue referred to an X-box.
Like Scarface (or The
departed) before the X’s have an important part to play in this particular
movie. In fact, I would even argue an –I believe- Final Destination 5 influence
of warning the audience that there’s a death scene coming (even though the
movie is pretty mild – PG-13).It’s a
nice little homage.
Conclusion
But that’s basically
all the Keep watching is. It’s a fun little movie with some creative shots and
a fright or two. Not a very good scary movie.
Still, it didn’t deserve two years on the shelf though.
Wonder is about a
young boy (Auggie) who has a facial deficiency. In short: he has, almost, no
face; only scars. Yet, his mother enrols him to school because she realizes
that a boy needs social contacts apart from his family. The movie follows his
first year.
For starters
(Spoiler):
what’s up with Owen Wilson and dead dogs?
As I wrote in the
title this article isn’t a review per se. Rather it is a train of thought I had
as I wondered why this movie didn’t truly struck a chord with me. I’m not
heartless; I breathed heavily when the movie demanded it from me and I might
even have shed a single tear - but only one.
At the end of Bridge
to Terabithia I was pouring…
The reason for this I
will try to explain here:
Feel good
Wonder is a ‘feel
good’ movie. So, basically this movie wants as little obstacle in the way as
possible to reach the happy ending. So, like Forrest Gump before it there is
only a touch here and there that allows the viewer to understand the bigger
picture.
In Forrest Gump it was Robin Wright balancing on a balcony and later dying of cancer. This was the
darkness this movie brought. But since the movie was solely focussed on
Forrest’s happy-going life this wasn’t a ‘big’ issue to trouble the viewer
with.
It’s not like Forrest
lost both his legs,
In fact, the gunshot
he received and the following hospital physiotherapy was downplayed (in
contrast to, e.g. Regarding Henry).
The same happens in
Wonder. You don’t get to see the kid grow up realizing he is different. He already
knows it the moment the movie starts. That way the movie is 'allowed' to downplay a lot of the horrible things that happen to him; since he already
knows how to deal with most of them.
Some drama
But as Forrest Gump
got shot so does our little hero encounter hardship along the way. His best friend betrays him and there’s a
bully involved.
Since these are kids
you can’t really blame them. Kids have a tendency to be stupid (even though
adults have, certainly, taken up the challenge).
But these events are
solved pretty much without any actions of our hero.
The best friend
realizes what he did and the bully is caught by the adults. Auggie only
has to ‘take’ the bad things happening to him and leave it up to the other
characters to solve it. In short: The main character of Wonder goes throughout
the movie without any conflict solved by him.
Which brings me to the
main point I’m trying to make: Doing nothing, apparently, brings
virtue.
Without spoiling too
much (it’s a feel good movie after all) Auggie gets a prize in the end
(basically) for daring to attend school.
This, I must admit, is
indeed a brave step for him. But not enough for me to make the movie interesting.
Also the movie stays
well clear of any changes to the human psyche disfigurement has. Our hero becomes a ‘Jesus figure’- without any faults.
Wonder could have been
an intriguing tale about a disfigured boy recognizing his own weaknesses as he
tries to make social contact. Instead the movie offers a ‘fallen hero without
any conquest’ who has other people fight for him.
Even Harry Potter
knew that it was Neville who should win the House Cup instead of Harry.
And a bit
of a review
Wonder is a greatly
acted showpiece. Owen, Julia, Jacob Tremblay and the rest of the child actors
are perfectly fine as the best friends and bullies. Tremblay especially is great as the
hero of our story (even though I can’t wait for his high-pitched voice to
break) who shines through his magnificent make-up. It is, however, the story
that pulls this movie down.
So that’s where the
movie fails for me. It’s a great movie with wonderful scenes and acting, But,
in the end, Wonder fails to deliver on the one thing it (to me) set out to do:
to tell the story of a disfigured boy carving his place in the prejudice world.
No, other people carved it for him and he got a prize for ‘simply being in’ it. Almost there, but no.
The technical ranting (you can skip this bit if you wish)
In short, it is safe to say that, cartography isn't the main thing this television show is banking on.
