The Dance of Reality
2013
Writer/Director: Alejandro Jodorowsky
The Dance of Reality is Alejandro Jodorowsky’s first film in a ridiculous 23 years. After indulging in El Topo (which I think is a masterpiece) and The Holy Mountain (which has enough bold ideas and beautiful shots to fill several movies), I was excited at the prospect of seeing his new film on a big screen. Thankfully, this new work is just so identifiably his, with its focus on spirituality, off-kilter humour and his unique no holds barred approach to visual style that I’d say The Dance of Reality definitely ranks with those other films. Similarly with those films too, I left feeling like I had no idea what really happened and a little overwhelmed with the sheer excess of content. I can’t help feeling any ideas I might have about this film are probably wrong.
Partly autobiographical, the story is inspired by Jodorowsky’s own childhood growing up in the Chilean coastal town of Tocopilla, and was filmed on location there. It’s saying something when this film can be called the most coherent he’s made yet – Jodorowsky here very much follows the advice “When forced to pick between truth and legend, print the legend”. Jeremias Herskovits plays the young Alejandro, a painfully shy young boy who is bullied by many for being Jewish and effeminate, and is desperate to win the affection of his father. The real Jodorowsky appears from time to time as his future self/spirit guide/narrator. Stranger still, Jodorowsky’s own son Brontis plays his father Jaime, a brash violent Communist who models himself on Stalin, all large moustache and grey jumpsuit, and whose approach to parenting is comically extreme. Pamela Flores plays Alejandro’s mother Sara, a buxom lady who runs the family undergarments store in the town, and who only communicates by singing. Large scenes of her lamenting or offering advice turn the film into an operatic musical.
As with El Topo and The Holy Mountain, The Dance of Reality is primarily about a man undergoing a quasi-Messianic spiritual journey, facing a series of challenges which tests his commitments to his goals and teaches him the aspects of his life he should be valuing. In this case, Jaime leaves Tocopilla on a quest to assassinate the right wing president of Chile to prove himself following several blows to his perception of his masculinity. Lots of other Jodorowsky traits and interests pop up too – a fascination with money and how it both corrupts and creates opportunities; the use of actors with amputations and disfigurements; long passages of rambling philosophical content and visual explorations of religion via mystical characters (here includes a nude theosophist and a kindly carpenter); and absolutely no fear in showing anything graphic (nudity, torture, urination, bloodshed).
Jodorowsky throws so many ideas at the wall here, and it’s unsurprising not all of them stick. This may be his most ‘conventional’ film but that doesn’t mean it’s not a mess. Long stretches of the film divert from the plot to explore often unrelated topics, and surreal content often drags out scenes longer than feels necessary. At over two hours, it can sometimes be a bit of a slog. Those familiar with his work will not be so confused by these tangents, and as a fan I lapped up a lot of these genuinely quite entertaining asides. Many shots are frequently gorgeous and distinct, especially with the clarity of digital film as opposed to the cheap film stock of his earlier work – a crowd of plague victims clad in black carrying tattered parasols traverses a mountain; the sea spitting up huge piles of dead fish sending seagulls into a frenzy; a joyous congregation holding chairs above their heads and jumping 26 times in thankfulness; Jaime fighting off Nazis with invisible sci-fi weapons.
The film does try to cover too many themes, although perhaps the most important one is Jodorowsky’s perception that our understanding of what ‘reality’ is is not concrete but rather a personal dance of our imaginations and experiences and an understanding of lives and experiences beyond our own. Jodorowsky is that rare beast – a true artist who soaks up the most diverse range of inspirations and creates challenging works for which he is more than happy to lose money making. In interviews, he comes across as a very humorous and energetic man, despite his age. That very much shows in this film.
Me and Earl and the Dying Girl
2015
Writer: Jesse Andrews
Director: Alfonso Gomez-Rejon
Aka, the making of a Sundance hit 101. There is this stereotype of the Sundance indie hit being the quirky self-aware dramedy about dysfunctional middle class American families dealing with minor crises, and in ways Me and Earl and the Dying Girl fits many of these criteria, convoluted title and all. It’s also the latest in a series of films about teenagers with cancer, after The Fault in our Stars and Now is Good (although I haven’t seen either of those so I don’t know how this compares) – it’s probably likely this adaptation of Jesse Andrew’s teen novel was greenlighted following the big success of Fault in our Stars. But reviews of this film had generally been pretty good and the trailer made it seem pretty charming and light-hearted, plus I do have a bit of a soft spot for these sorts of films.
The Me of the title is Greg (Thomas Mann), a witty but socially awkward senior at high school who has crafted the perfect position for himself at school by being friendly with everyone but friends with no one, and not being a fixture in any discernible clique. His comfortable anonymity is troubled when his mum (Connie Britton) forces him to reach out to Rachel (Olivia Cooke), a former childhood friend who has been diagnosed with leukaemia. After an awkward start, Greg and Rachel gradually become good friends as she start her chemotherapy. Greg soon introduces her to Earl (RJ Cyler), his co-worker (as he’s too scared to call him his friend), with whom he likes to make Gondry-esque short movies based upon puns of classic movies (The 400 Bros, The Rad Shoes, A Sockwork Orange).
Reading comments online, it seems like this film has really polarised people, with many quite extreme in either loving it or hating it. I know the film didn’t fare so well at the US box office. But I’m quite happy to say I liked this film a lot. There are aspects about it which I wasn’t so sure about and bits which don’t totally fit, but overall there was a lot to enjoy about it and I was won over and I was moved. Of course the film is very cineliterate and full of references to directors and books which I lapped up. The soundtrack is very carefully selected too, with lots of Brian Eno tracks, including some original ones he composed just for this, which is exciting.
But what I liked most about the film was the characters, and the really great performances that brought them to life. The trio of teenagers especially come across as genuine and flawed and confused, even with some of the knowingly arch dialogue the script gives them. I’ve read complaints online about how Greg is an annoying narrator who is grumpy and doesn’t change over the course of the story, but that’s the point! Greg is stubborn, and he’s plagued with self-doubt and slavishly follows habits. It’s not surprising he often screws up when faced with the challenge of making a new friend, but we see him make the effort and we see the subtle development of his and Rachel’s friendship and the little lessons he learns. It’s testament to Mann’s realisation that we do enjoy his company, and how he and the film aren’t afraid of exposing his shortcomings. His deadpan voiceover repeats knowingly how this isn’t a touching romantic story and that does come across as a bit postmodern cliché, but I forgot that the film is bookended by Greg writing this story as a manuscript so it begins to make sense.
Similarly, I was impressed with Cooke’s performance as Rachel, where often we read how she’s feeling through the slight emergence of a smile, or the distracted offhand glances of her eyes. The camera loves her face, and we grow to learn a lot from it. I also appreciated how the film approached her reaction to the cancer. It’s not surprising that chemotherapy would make her depressed as fuck, and that there are scenes where she doesn’t talk or doesn’t look at anyone, framed in the corner of the screen slightly out of focus. There are moments when she’s upset, and bits where she’s laughing and joking, but I respected how there are no grand emotional scenes where she monologues about what she’s learnt or how she’s grown. Cancer sucks, and this isn’t afraid to show it.
Thirdly I loved Cyler’s effortless performance as Earl. It’s a shame he isn’t actually in the film that much really, as in many ways he’s the most interesting character. Living literally on the wrong side of the tracks, there isn’t as much exploration of his friendship with Greg or why he too loves cinema or eats his lunch in their history teacher’s office with Greg. He’s the most level-headed and the wisest of the three, and Cyler imbues him with an intelligence and maturity which feels older.
So what flaws did I feel were there? As I said, I would have liked to have learnt more about Earl. Also, like with many of these American indie films, a lot of the dialogue comes across a little unreal, like in that mumblecore knowing laidback way which sounds rambling and real but sometimes feel like it’s being read from a script, like it knows how witty it is. I don’t often mind this sort of thing, like in a lot of Wes Anderson scenes, but I found some of it a little out of place when placed with the more low-key quieter moments of the film. The supporting characters and high school cliques are comically exaggerated in a way that is often funny, but the characters of the parents a left a little lacking because of this. This may just be the teens’ perception of them as people not that important to them at this point in their lives, but I felt they deserved a little more characterisation, especially when they have such good comic actors playing them, like Nick Offerman as Greg’s dad. Rachel’s mother (Molly Shannon) is seen coping with her daughter’s diagnosis by drinking, but that’s all we see of her really – the permanent glass of wine in her hand.
The film is directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, who’s had a lot of experience as a second-unit director and directing television, most notably American Horror Story. The very fluid camerawork full of crane shots and Steadicam which he favours in AHS is noticeably present here, although I think it gives a suitable sense of play and dynamism to scenes which is welcoming, especially when so many American comedy films nowadays are just happy to point and shoot and let the dialogue do all the work. Saying that, one extended scene where Greg and Rachel argue and the camera remains static near the ground is one of the most impressive in the film thanks to the script, the performances and Gomez-Rejon’s understanding of when restraint is the best option. For me, one of the biggest achievements of this film was its handling of the balance between comedy and drama. The film at times is more serious than I was expecting, and sometimes is emotional. I felt the film erred on the right side of sentimentality, not crossing over into mawkishness whilst still being affective. One scene set to Brian Eno’s ‘The Big Ship’ has quickly gone on to become one of my favourite scenes out of anything I’ve seen this year, it was genuinely moving. I was impressed.
Legend
2015
Writer/Director: Brian Helgeland
Coming out of Legend, I was thinking that I had been entertained and there were bits I liked, but overall it was just an okay film, good in parts. Bit too long. I couldn’t really put my finger on what stopped it from being a better film, or what might have been missing from it. Considering it a day later, I can’t remember enough specifics to query it much further. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the decision to play this biopic of the Kray twins, London’s most notorious gangsters, relatively straight, with a storyline simply linearly plotting events as they happened in one scene after another with very little exploration of the factors involved or consequences, makes this film pretty uninvolving. It’s hard to tell how many years have passed over the entire story – things just happen. And then other things happen. It’s almost documentarian, but lacks the drama or engagement to elevate the material. The film is so indebted to the Kray’s perception of themselves as legends that it hardly questions this, and often buys into it. Scenarios are directed to promote the twins onscreen as anti-heroes as much as the violent thugs they very often were.
The story starts when the Krays are already powerful gang lords of the East End. Tom Hardy plays Reggie, the relatively level-headed twin with a business mind, who commands respectability but is not afraid of getting his hands dirty. He’s getting increasingly concerned about his brother Ronald (also Tom Hardy), who is prone to impulsive violence and paranoia. He’s reckless, and enjoys being a gangster for the thrill of conflict. Reggie also meets Frances (Emily Browning), a delicate but self-aware teenager who quickly becomes his girlfriend. This leads to an interesting tension between the three of them, as Reggie is torn between his love for Frances and her desire for him to live on the right side of the law, and his loyalty to Ron and the pleasures of being a gangster. This dynamic was the most interesting part of the film, and it didn’t feature enough to my liking.
Essentially though, the film is a platform for Hardy’s performances, and they are generally very good. It says a lot when many of the best interactions in the film are between the two twins, and I have to give kudos to Hardy and the filmmakers for making those scenes look so seamless, they were excellently done. I liked the suave cockiness of Reggie. From the trailer, I was worried that Ron would be a bit more caricaturish, and it is a little bit, but I did appreciate how the film could both mock his more extreme thoughts and plans (such as his idea to build a utopian city in Nigeria) and convincingly display his genuinely unnerving sociopathic tendencies. Though I’ve got to agree with Mark Kermode when he describes Ronnie as sounding a bit like Alan Partridge and looking like Peter O’Hanraha-hanrahan from The Day Today.
Further thoughts: first of all, the title is rubbish. Legend. It explains and refers to nothing. I can’t remember if the word is even mentioned in the film. And why is it singular? They’re twins, there’s two of them. They were infamous yes, but legendary? Not really, or at least nothing in the film really gets to the heart of what made them iconic, and nothing particularly legendary happens. I was on the listings page on a cinema website the other day and it had legitimately put the description of the 1980s Tom Cruise film Legend up instead by accident. This title says relatively nothing about the film.
Second, I liked Browning’s performance. She nailed the balance between playing vulnerable young woman but one who could stand up for herself and who wasn’t naïve. Her accent was on point too. But the decision to have her narrating the film is a strange one. It was probably hoped her involvement would provide more of an emotional core for the film, one which the Krays couldn’t provide. But the logistics of her voiceover makes no sense, and is often dragged down by clunky dialogue and exposition.
Finally, I liked the 1960s period detail, and the contrasts between the tacky glamour of the nightclubs with the faded décor of the terraced houses of the East End. But in the end, the overt style of the settings, all stages and sharp furniture is superficial like the film itself. It buys into this lifestyle too much to the point where it can only touch the surface of the Kray story, and we come out of it entertained but none the wiser.
Musings from a Darkened Room 