I'm feeling rather delicate today ... that's what happens when you drink without eating beforehand I guess. What did my mother tell me about lining my stomach?! I am sure as I get older I'm becoming more and more of a lightweight!
Anyway, I thought I'd make the morning at work go that little bit quicker by scribing a quick blog by way of a 'tea break'. A few weekends ago, I seemed to have a bit of a predilection for biopics, watching first Clint Eastwood's Changeling and then Gus Van Sant's Milk on DVD. This morning seems the right time to share my thoughts on them with you kindly readers.
I was really impressed by Jolie's performance in Changeling and thought the film a well made, polished offering which is a credit to its director Eastwood. Set in the 1920s and based on the true life story of Christine Collins, a single mother who battled the shockingly corrupt LAPD when it tried to pass off an impostor as her missing son (hence the title), only to become a victim of the system and find herself placed in a mental hospital, it was obviously made with the award season in mind. Changeling is a solid, worthy movie with performances begging for Oscar recognition. Of course we now know Jolie departed from the trademarked awards empty-handed, but her performance is compelling and worthy of praise even if it is an obvious bid for shiny gongs. She conveys Christine's grief powerfully and looks surprisingly un-Jolie like throughout. This was not what I'd been expecting, having heard a number of critics object to the fact that Jolie's celebrity status and movie star glamour detracted from the tale's emotional import, it being impossible not to think about her as Brad Pitt's missus. Yes she looks as stunning as ever, but I really didn't think she looked like herself at all - she plays Christine with a rawness and dignity which is devastating. Eastwood's attention to period detail is also remarkable - his direction might not be the most creative or groundbreaking but its classy and flawless, beautiful to watch. The only thing I'd criticise about the film is the casting of John Malkovich as religious crusader Reverend Gustav, who champions Christine's cause. For me, Malkovich always looks too, well, evil, to play a goodie. Even his conversion in Dangerous Liaisons failed to affect me; his is a face made for playing baddies! I'll end this mini review by saying that if you don't like earnest movies, avoid this; if however you want to see something which demonstrates a deep pleasure in the craft of filmmaking and will move you, check out Changeling.
Milk was a bit of a let down in comparison - I know, I'm really going against the critical current huh? Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk, the gay rights activist who became California's first openly gay elected official and won an Oscar for the role, swiping it from under the favourite Mickey Rourke's battered nose (he coulda been a contender, etc etc). You'd think with a maverick director, well regarded cast including a great turn from James Franco as Harvey's partner, and a story as interesting as the movie's source material, the film would be a dead cert. Van Sant intersperses real archive footage with his cast's performances to create a sense of authenticity which you'd think would mean the movie would be a fascinating watch. Unfortunately, I just found it boring. Yes Penn is amazing, but the film is a pedestrian offering and Harvey Milk's story is deserving of a much more exciting treatment.
Comments