MyDoanne: Movie Critic

"Looks like the unconscious diagram of some psychiatric event."

The opening quote for this review, could not be more appropriate to the essence of the film.

High-Rise, has been a stalled passion project for decades and was once deemed "unfilmable." Mark Kermode alluded to this element in his article for The Guardian saying: "Nicolas Roeg famously wanted to adapt Ballard’s book as long ago as the late 70s, and since then umpteen directors and screenwriters have been variously attached to the increasingly “unfilmable” title. "And it is very understandable as to why it has earned this title. As a person who was unfamiliar with the work of the director Ben Wheatley, and with the book itself; my initial response to the film was one of pure confusion and bafflement. Another impression the film left on me is how ultimately British it is. The collection of British actors and the concrete apartment block setting, are elements used in order to create the perfect British contemporary film.

It does run the risk of being far too on-the-nose, contrived and repetitious. With an array of characters, some compelling and some not, it still gets you invested in them and their impending doom in spite of how much they gleefully indulge in their primal survival instincts. This film is a thriller that will have you firmly in your seat, not balancing on it's edge but that is its uniqueness; Wheatley's spark for surprises never leaves his grasp, justifying it with the heightened tone. High-Rise is the unnerving tale of life in a modern tower block running out of control. Within the concealing walls of an elegant forty-story tower block, the affluent tenants are hell-bent on an orgy of destruction. Cocktail parties degenerate into marauding attacks on 'enemy' floors and the once-luxurious amenities become an arena for technological mayhem.

The story is set in a pseudo futuristic 70's world. The building itself is very reminiscent of the tower blocks constructed in the 60's/70's which were initially welcomed, and their excellent views made them popular living places. However later, as the buildings themselves deteriorated, they grew a reputation for being undesirable low cost housing, and many tower blocks saw rising crime levels, increasing their unpopularity. Of course, the building is also a character here. It's a new building, settling into its foundations, but it's seen as a way of life for many, working and living within its walls, which is why the building is often personified in the film with examples from the architect describing the settling stages as "teething problems". Peter Bradshaw from The Guardian described it as: "a state-of-the-art residential tower block whose inhabitants succumb to a collective nervous breakdown, apparently as a result of the building itself." While the doors are always open despite the eventual chaos, it's clear that the characters are systematically trapped in the tower block and wholly dependent on it. Not only trapped inside, but to their individual floors, as their stifled economic situations won't allow them to ascend.

The introduction to the protagonist Dr. Robert Laing was very implicative to Edgar Wright's visual story telling style, using a 'show don't tell approach'. Laing becomes instantly aware of a class conflict in his tower: poorer tenants live in cheaper flats on the floors beneath, yet because service charges are the same throughout the building, the lower orders feel disproportionately aggrieved by the electricity cutting out and garbage chute jamming up. And so the residents set out to destroy the place because they were wronged by it, instead of everything being equally shared, a natural hierarchy was bound to happen. The characters living in the tower block were illustrated by Tim Martin in his article for The Telegraph saying: "the deranged inhabitants of the tower block at the centre of the story are not the social-housing tenants of 1970s London but, as Ballard described them, “a virtually homogeneous collection of well-to-do professional people – lawyers, doctors, tax consultants, senior academics and advertising executives”." Even though the 'rich' in the tower are just as poor as the poor; they don't (apart from the architect) appear to live any better than the people on lower floors, the only difference would appear to be that they think they are privileged living higher up. This 'privilege' appears to be purely imaginary. The people on the lower floors party just as hard as the higher ups. And everyone knows everyone's business creating a weird distorted sense of community.

When researching High-Rise, the score is most definitely one of the most talked about aspects of the film, and fair dues because it is powerful. The music defines every scene; the varied uses of ABBA's S.O.S through the stringed - orchestral version in the Marie Antoinette themed party scene, to the chilling and erie cover for the mayhem sequences, the music is easily able to enhance the atmosphere.

In Tim Robey's article for The Telegraph, he wrote how: "Clint Mansell’s sultry score invites us languidly into the fun and games, but the musical highlight is an inspired slow-jam cover of ABBA’s S.O.S., by Portishead. It’s a party track for a party at the end of the world."The score is just generally brilliant being dazed and disorientating yet sensual and unsettling.

As aforementioned, High-Rise bears a 70's aesthetic, which could have easily been translated into modern day due to its timeless relevance. Kermode alluded to this in his article saying: "Wheatley and Jump situate the action in the 70s fog of the source, presenting a vision of the past seen from the present, looking towards the future." With this 70's demeanor, the film has been repeatedly compared to Stanley Kubrick's work. Kermode again writing on this saying: "Through these rooms, corridors and supermarket aisles, Laurie Rose’s camera moves with Kubrickian elegance." And, it is a fair connection to make due to the film being very stylized and surreal cinematography through the use of the slow motion shots, colour scheme and the mid shots combined with low angles in order to create a personal, awkward and unnatural sense of third person perspective.

Although the performances of all the cast were undoubtedly commendable; Tom Hiddleston manages a very tricky balancing act, as the cool observer drawn deeper or higher into mayhem. His performance just oozed class and delivers a fine performance, however for me, the most impressive performance comes from Luke Evans as the mentally tortured Wilder. His character is an abusive misogynist you love to hate, who takes it upon himself to expose the class injustices that come as a way of life in the high-rise, causing a dangerous social situation to arise. He makes trouble and yet is obscurely excited by the violent disorder he helps to foment. But his determination for a more respectable quest slowly grows on you. He's got the most developed and complex contradictions of the ensemble – a fighter and an artist, and a violator and a lover.

In essence, I don't think High-Rise is a film that was meant to be understood. The sole fact that the book has been described as "unfilmable", heightens how it is a difficult adaptation with its dizzying, disorienting, dystopian vision. It is very difficult to understand the action taking place in the film and I often found myself asking: 'Why do the characters make the choices they do?', 'What drives them to this madness?' Some may feel battered over the head by the film and many will find it enthralling and profound. While it's thematically hardly new, the incisive execution is the ideal package and an example for the best of contemporary British cinema. It's blood-soaked, alcohol-fueled and nicotine- injected mayhem that doesn't hold back. Nev Pierce wrote in his article for Empire describing High-Rise as: "Batshit crazy. Don’t expect a thriller in the seat-edge sense, but you will be thrilled — and repulsed — by this bold, faithful adaptation of Ballard’s ever-prescient picture of First World strife.

Those with an appetite for aberrant creative visions could make “High-Rise” a hot cult property, though this unruly black comedy doesn’t work on any of the levels mainstream audiences expect."

Of course, with any film as bonkers as High-Rise, comes the chance that audiences may feel alienated from the plot and characters however, if you are willing to switch your mind to escape mode, High-Rise may prove as captivating to you as it was to me. But the tone is always more playful than it is disturbing feels like a high budget cult/indie film. I would give the film a four out of five, star rating.

"When I was small, I only knew small things. But now I'm five, I know everything."

Room, is a heavy, hard-hitting drama about a life created inside a shed called 'Room'. There are no words other than 'masterpiece' that could describe this film and how you become immersed into the depths and revelations of a child that knows nothing outside of a small room, which he was born into and where he and his mother are being held prisoner. I was intrigued by the trailer, yet didn't fully grasp what the theme of the story would be; initially I thought it was going to be a story based on the Joesif Fritzl case however, the writer of the novel Emma Donoghue has said in many interviews that, "the story is not based on any specific real-life case." But the trailer for Room, most definitely could not prepare you for the emotional journey this film will take you on. I have seen many criticisms of the film on how it doesn't stay closely related to the book, Tim Robey's article for The Telegraph titled 'less powerful than the book' states that the film "lacks the flooding emotional force Donoghue gave it on the page." As I have never read the book, I have to remain unbiased to this statement. However, because of the films release I am most definitely going to grab myself a copy of the book. Room explores the life of Jack, an energetic 5-year-old who is looked after by his loving and devoted mother - 'Ma'. They are trapped in a windowless, 10-by-10-foot space that Ma has euphemistically named Room. But as Jack's curiosity about their situation grows, and Ma's resilience reaches its breaking point, they enact a risky plan to escape, ultimately bringing them face-to-face with what may turn out to be the scariest thing yet: the real world.

One thing I always like to see when books are adapted into film, is when the writer of the book collaborates on the project, as I feel it gives the film more authenticity to the vision the writer had intended. Donoghue worked closely with Director Lenny Abrahamson when writing the screenplay for the film and Abrahamson's efforts to have the novel adapted to film were described by Helen Barlow in The Irish Examiner, saying:"Abrahamson was the person who put the project together after he had vigorously pursued Donoghue and ultimately taught her a thing or two about screenwriting."

Ma's character plays a huge significance to the story because, obviously her bringing Jack into the world, (disclaimer: major spoilers ahead) but also how we see her react and cope to the outside world once they escape. Whenever we hear of these sort of stories of missing people being found alive, in our heads we create a happily ever after for them and believe that everything will go back to normal in their lives though this is not always the case. The depiction of Ma's life after release is traumatic and difficult as she has to face the reality that she won't get all those years back to relive them as how she would have planned, and along with that she has to teach a five year old simple things like how to use stairs and that there is so much more to life than what was in 'Room'. There was one element to the story that I didn't quite grasp however, was the fact that Ma didn't explain to Jack her situation from the beginning, rather than lie to him about what was real and what was not. However this just adds to the hopelessness of the situation; Ma must have believed that there was never going to be a chance of her leaving 'Room' and just as we tell children to believe in Santa, she told Jack that all the pictures on the TV were fake in order to hold onto his innocence.

The story is told from the perspective of Jack, a five-year-old boy who knows nothing outside of the room and through this his perspective of life appears very oddly whimsical and intimate; for Ma, this is a prison, but for Jack, 'Room' is an entire world. An article in The New York Times alluded to this, illustrating that, "The constricted narrative and Jack’s point of view flow together. He doesn’t live in the same inhumane prison that Ma suffers in, but in a wide-open universe trembling with possibilities, with dancing lights, hand-shadow puppetry and amusements made with cardboard and eggshells." I imagine that a film with a topic like this, it would become easy to stray away from Jack being the main character and put more focus on Ma as she is the victim and the person who is suffering most because of the situation, however Room was able to hold it's focus on Jack as the protagonist through elements like the narration, the story was able to remain his. Justin Chang wrote about this subject in his article for Variety describing, "a mastery of language and interior monologue that kept us firmly locked inside the head of the story’s 5-year-old protagonist."

The cinematographer, Danny Cohen, who also worked on The Danish Girl and This is England, was able to capture so much depth in Room. As we are seeing this world through the eyes of a child who knows no better, this room is viewed as his whole world and therefore the room is made to feel as such. But to the viewer, we know that it is an enclosed and confined space therefore we can't help but feel a sense of claustrophobia. When we return to 'Room' at the end of the film, it has been stripped down and empty yet it has never felt smaller. We has just gotten used to seeing Jack adjust and adapt to the outside world and once we are brought back to 'Room' we become so much more aware of how restricted their living space was for so many years. Chang praised Cohen's work in Room in his article for Variety saying: "The film, by contrast, has no recourse but to give us an immediate view of this enclosed space, though Abrahamson and his gifted cinematographer Danny Cohen do a fine job of keeping as much concealed as possible. Lensed in dingy, muted colors and tight, widescreen closeups that deliberately frustrate our sense of space, the film places us in extremely close quarters with Jack (Jacob Tremblay) and Ma (Larson), the only other person he’s ever seen or spoken to."Due to the fact that around half of the film is set in a small shed, the use of wide angle shots and close ups (as seen in the images below), give us a conflicting feeling of claustrophobia and yet also a feeling of broadness in the small space.

Example of wide angle shot in Room.

Example of close up shot in Room.

The setting of the room itself was was very unique in terms of usual studio set ups. The room was comprised of one by one foot tiles which were removable allowing the illusion of confinement to remain with the actors yet also allowing every shot to be achievable from anywhere in the room. It was described as an 'inverted Rubik's cube.' Cohen himself described the set up in an article for The LA Times, by saying: "If we wanted to take a wall off, we could. But what we ended up discovering was that keeping it as a solid four-walled shed just gave it a bit more atmosphere, if you like. What we did do is you could take bits of the wall out, so you could put the camera lens on the plane of the wall, but you could actually have the body of the camera outside the shed. And we could take the floor out, if you wanted to get very low shots." This arrangement worked seamlessly as the cinematography was able to capture so much life and detail in such a small space, through using this original method.

All the performances in Room were outstanding, but the shining stars of the film were most definitely the two leads, Jacob Tremblay and Brie Larson. Although this is not Tremblay's first debut into feature films; at such a young age it is genuinely astonishing to see such a meaningful and sincere performance from an actor his age. Dargis wrote in The New York Times about Tremblay's performance saying: "Together, Jack’s vision and Mr. Tremblay’s presence create a curious paradox because they help make “Room” an oddly comfortable viewing experience, especially in its first hour." No doubt he was a major find for casting as he doesn’t strike a false note as a soulful, spirited child who has been so thoroughly deprived of life’s traditional necessities and pleasures. Tremblay's spoken performance through the narration is impeccable as it gives us direct and concise glimpses into the mind of a five year old. His view is limited yet bubbly and innocent as he enthusiastically explores his understanding of his world.

Brie Larson's performance as 'Ma' is phenomenal as she really grasps that impression of numbness to the pain she’s been forced to endure since being kidnapped and held captive by a menacing man only referred to as Old Nick. When preparing for her performances on set, Larson stated that she avoided washing her face before filming, as she wanted to make it clear that she wasn't wearing makeup. Peter Bradshaw wrote in his article for The Guardian, defining Larson's performance: "She is very good at conveying the nauseous wretchedness of her life: the strain of concealing the truth from her son, or rather the strain of behaving as if the truth does not exist, since it would be impossible to explain." Larson was immaculately able to capture the essence of a woman who was robbed of her youth and desperation that situation leaves you in, along with the fact that she has given birth to a child who was the product of rape.

Brie Larson in Room.

In summation, Room is an unsettling story of survival which is completely encaptivating and thought provoking from start to finish. The film gives us a journey of moments of tension, uncertainty and compassion. To give Room a star rating, it would most definitely be a solid five out of five stars and I urge anyone who hasn't seen it, to most definitely watch it for themselves and experience a magnificent story.

"I don't mean prayed for, I mean preyed upon."

The introduction of Spotlight portrays a seemingly small project given to the 'Spotlight' team in the Boston Globe, purely for the reasoning that the new editor saw the story in another local paper. But this seemingly small story snowballed into a huge reveal of the catholic church and the years of covering up a numerous accounts of child molestation cases. I couldn't help but feel a connection to this film as I grew up in a predominantly catholic community; and as I attended catholic schools, it was regular for us to go to church and engage with the priests and nuns - some of which even worked and taught at the schools. I was never a religious person mind; when I was old enough to think for myself I considered myself agnostic and so when hearing of all the abuse and molestation taking place in the catholic church not only in Ireland but around the world; it definitely struck close to home for me. So when hearing of Spotlight, it was intriguing to me, and after seeing the trailer, I knew it was a film I had to see. The plot is a true story about a team of reporters named 'Spotlight' delving into allegations of abuse in the Catholic Church. Their year-long investigation uncovers a decades-long cover-up at the highest levels of Boston's religious, legal, and government establishments.

Spotlight begins with an ominous prologue; taking place in a police station, with very vague dialogue we are not certain as to what is going on, but we see a priest being detained in a room on his own, and another priest speaking with a mother and her children in the another room. Soon after this scene we are told of the situation at hand and therefore we begin the journey of delving into the depths of the Catholic Church. Throughout the film we are given accounts of the abuse from the victims, Justin Chang described these scenes saying: "There are no triumphant, lip-smacking confrontations here, no ghoulish rape flashbacks or sensationalistic cutaways to a sinister clerical conspiracy behind closed doors. There is only the slow and steady gathering of information." The plot line itself is very intriguing and captivating, as to how such a scandal was so easily swept under the rug. The film feels as though it is very much played out as if fiction and I found myself many times having to remind myself that this film was based upon true events, which was hugely affirmed before the credits as there is a report on Cardinal Law’s Pyrrhic fate after the story broke, and provides a list of other cities where Catholic sex-abuse scandals have been dragged out of the shadows. Hundreds of cities worldwide, as it so happens.
Towards the beginning of Spotlight's investigations, they find a support group who specifically deal with victims of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, where they make the revelation that it isn't a small thirteen or so people who have been abused, but rather closer to one hundred. Upon researching for this article, I was able to find the website of the organisation and they are called SNAP, standing for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The website offers a huge amount of material on priests, resources and, of course now that the situation has become eminent due to the film; the Spotlight team have their own tab on the website. I would urge everyone to take a look at it as it is very interesting and informative.

The Cast of Spotlight

The introduction to the film is very fast paced; we are thrown into the plot line straight away with no real description or background given to the characters however, I don't feel as though it was even necessary for any exposition, as all the information we needed to hear was given throughout the film - the research and reveal of the accounts of abuse. There are huge character arcs to the members of the Spotlight team which we see developing, for example the character that Rachel McAdams plays Sacha Pfeiffer; attended church regularly and after taking up this case she stopped due to the discomfort and realization it gave her.
The cinematography of the film is very understated, although I feel like the cinematography did not need to be dominating factor to the film, due to the fact that it is very much narrative driven. Spotlight finds a thrilling and absorbing anti-glamour in journalistic spadework, and the tactile movement of analogue information through filing cabinets and photocopiers. Mark Kermode wrote in The Guardian about the cinematographer, Masanobu Takayanagi, and his approach to Spotlight, saying he, "goes for something more unobtrusively televisual with Spotlight, McCarthy burying any discernible visual “style” behind the more pressing issue of script and story." As aforementioned, there are no theatrical scenes of drama and no traumatic flash backs, but rather simple and realistic interactions with people. There was a sequence in relation to this that stood out to me; the scene cuts between two of the team’s interviews with abuse victims and the crossing back and forth reveals the shared patterns of grooming, but also the horrible specificity of every victim’s story in a very simplified and understated manner. However there was one scene in which Mark Ruffalo's character named Michael Rezendes, lashes out on his team leader - played by Michael Keaton - over the fact that they didn't run their story sooner. Which leads me onto my next point!

'Spotlight' office scene

Mark Ruffalo, in my opinion, is the shining star of this film. He plays his character as a very awkward yet determined person and I was completely convinced I wasn't watching an actor at work. When researching Mark Ruffalo's preparations for the film I was incredibly impressed, as his training was method acting in practice. When Ruffalo met the real Michael Rezendes for the first time at his home, he was carrying a notebook and an iPhone to record Rezendes' voice in order to get his most accurate speech pattern and during every break, Mark Ruffalo asked the real Michael Rezendes to say his lines for him. Ruffalo was even reported as becoming, "so engrossed in one of Rezendes’ more current investigations that he commandeered the journalist’s computer to keep replaying a video clip of a patient’s death in a mental institution."Unsurprisingly, Ruffalo has been nominated for an Oscar in his role in Spotlight and I have never been more confident in saying that he will win the award.

Mark Ruffalo as Michael Rezendes

Similar to Ruffalo, Michael Keaton pursued the real person his character was based off of - Walter Robinson and before meeting him, he found out he actually lived near Robinson's house. Keaton also obtained video and audio of Robinson and when he first met Robinson, he did an impression of him that Robinson was so scared and said to him, "How did you know everything about me, we just met?" However I don't feel like Keaton's acting lives up to what some critics have made it, and it most definitely does not compare to Ruffalo's performance. Geoffrey Macnab described Keaton's performance in The Independent saying: "It's a fine character performance, a world away from Beetlejuice." Keaton's recent performances all feel very similar in how he portrays them; same facial expressions, same monotonous delivery of dialogue. I just don't believe that his acting in Spotlight was spectacular, regardless of Robinson himself believing it to be so akin to himself. The different roles the foursome play in the gathering of evidence are carefully delineated. Robby, a dyed-in-the-wool Bostonian, knows best how to navigate the forces of the establishment – the courts, law enforcement and church, all arcanely interconnected – while Pfeiffer and MacLeish knock doors, wheedling, charming and cajoling assistance from members of the public.

When the film comes to an end we are met with the harsh reality of the churches hold on society, and most importantly - the government, as they were a close ally in covering up these horrendous crimes. Robbie Collin wrote about the conclusion to the film in The Telegraph saying: "There’s no tidy moral to take away here, which is, I think, entirely right: a story like this shouldn’t end in comfort. Instead, it leaves your skin prickling – both at the despicable business of secret-keeping, and the courage and resourcefulness that rivetingly overturns it." Spotlight is very much a story based film which we are made to put our full and sole attention to and this was done so easily for me. The absolute detail and depth that went into the research for this film is incredible and I feel like my eyes have been opened further to the knowledge of the situation of the scandals and to the dark, chilling fact that even though I sat watching the film thinking 'how could these people get away with such horrific acts?' The fact of the matter was - as the film slowly proceeds to tell us; everyone knew it was happening, but we all chose to ignore it. And on that note I'll end with one significant quote from Spotlight -“If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one,”

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Latest Posts

About