Man of Steel film review

The origins of Superman are given firm foundations in this loving  portrayal of the early life of Superman/Kel-El/Clark Kent.  Certainly, by the end of the film I understood his upbringing and his heritage better than ever before - and these are instrumental is understanding his purpose.  Unfortunately I also felt exhausted and my ears were sore from listening to an hour of endless explosions.  The story is interesting, and has definite emotional journeys for several key characters, but the action sequences are many and frequent, and there is the sense that each needs to outdo the preceding ones.  They end up taking over an initially smart, mature telling of a familiar tale.

Henry Cavill does an outstanding job of carrying Superman's journey from lost boy to saviour of mankind.  He also carries the film, amongst a stellar cast, most of whom are given less to do than their calibre deserves.  Thus it is extra frustrating that the villain (General Zod) is given such a basic and boring interpretation by Michael Shannon.  Hid is the role the A-Listers ought to have been fighting over.  However, Shannon delivers a blandly serviceable baddie with a hunger for power and an appetite for destruction.  This would not rankle so much were it not for the fact that the script provides so much rich material for Shannon, which he chooses to ignore.  Zod has a long and interesting history with Superman's father, he is miraculously delivered from the destruction of his home planet and believes it his grand destiny to provide his race with a new home, his beliefs favour eugenics and socialism and he is ruthless in his means to achieve a greater good.  He is interesting, he believes he is doing good and he is personally invested in the missions he undertakes.  When Superman foils his plans, I craved an emotional response.  Does Zod crumble?  Cry?  Scream?  No, he calmly explains his motives then does continues on in bloodlust (but now without it making sense).  It was just such a wasted opportunity.  And when he is defeated once and for all (that's hardly a spoiler...it's pretty predictable) the means with which he is beaten are so ridiculously simple it mocks the complex methods that have gone before and failed.

So....yeah....I loved a lot of things about this film but the overdone action sequences killed it.  It is a strong foundation for the films that will follow, and I look forward to the sequels exploring the emotional depths of more than one character.

See this film at home, so you can control the volume and fast-forward the boring bits.  The good bits are really good - and so pretty!  It is a shame they go hand in hand with so much senseless violence.

Child's Pose film review

A grown man seeks to escape the influence of his overbearing mother.  When he finds himself the cause of a fatal car accident, she is quick to make herself indispensable.  For her, it is a chance to prove her devotion to him.  He struggles to accept her assistance.

It is a strong premise, and the realationships are easily recognisable, but I did not enjoy the treatment this film gives it.

At the heart of the story is the mother/son relationship.  It is told, though, exclusively from the mother's side, so the viewer never comes to understand enough about the son to appreciate why their relationship is so strained.  Presenting only half the story makes this high stakes drama rather boring.  I simply did not understand the conflict.

Another feature I struggled with was the film's cinematography: the majority is shot in mid-close-up with a shaky handheld camera.  Why?  It's stupid.  It never looks good.  There are also close ups and extreme close ups, but they have no effect.  The son is such a boring character that no amount of close ups could elicit further interest in him.

The mother is a complex, interesting character, and played with panache by Luminita Gheorghiu - but the story requires more than just her and more than just her version of events.  It lets itself down in focusing solely on the mother, as she cannot be understood without understanding the people around her.

See this film if you do not mind ugly camerawork and are happy to work to fill in the gaps this film leaves.

In the House film review

Like other French treats, this morsel is light, delicate and goes down easily.  But like a bite of marzipan, it has a less than sweet edge to it.  It wastes no time establishing its characters, their relationships, and the premise.  I like a fast paced film, so I was happy to go along with the twists and turns and plot devices, though the story grew more absurd with each.

For a film about storytelling, it was unsurprising to notice a form of meta-commentary - in particular it asks the age-old question "how to end it?"  A perennial problem, for endings are not a natural thing.  Real life has no endings, so how to create an ending that feels natural and also balances surprise with inevitability?  It is tricky, but the film manages to get it just right.  While the subject matter encourages hypercritical analysis of its storytelling, I found I was happy to go wherever the story took us - having been solidly won over by the films many charms, not least of which is the lovable cast.  No one in In the House is without fault, but there vulnerabilities are more often endearing than anything else.

See this film for a charming diversion and some uniquely French humour.  The ending certainly is quite nutty, but I loved it nonetheless.  Why not love it?

Tu theatre review

Tawata Productions' TŪ gets a lot of things right.  It is absorbing and affecting, well-acted and well-designed and at all times precise in its actions.  It tells a story worthy of an audience - but several aspects of the story remained unclear.  This kept the story distant and undefined, and as a result I struggled to connect with the material on a personal level.

For one thing, the script was often too overt and too formal.  The cast demonstrated varying levels of ability in making the dialogue sound natural - but on the whole it too often sounded unnatural.  One such example is the lack of contractions; rather than saying "I'm" the characters would say "I am".  I could not find a reason for this and it created an unnecessary barrier for the actors and audience alike.

The script also struggle to establish a sense of place.  It presents both time and place as important factors in the life of the play, but shies away from defining them.  The time periods are eventually made very clear - but this should have been achieved earlier than it was.  Place, though, is left unclear.  There is a lot of talk of city and country, and that the central family tie their sense of home/belonging to the land they know.  I was unsure, though, where this play takes place.  Wellington?  Auckland?  Christchurch?  It's hard to be certain.  Is it important?  Not to me, but it is important to the main characters, so understanding their home would help us to identify with them.

But the story still comes through, and it is a sad and shocking tale that had me feeling sick to the stomach.  The staging is excellent, as is the  use of Maori cultural traditions to portray battles and struggles, and ease transitions.  This is a slick production, that shines in spite of a sloppy script.

See this play if you care about  family and/or war and/or the urbanisation of New Zealand.

Paradise: Love film review

The first in a trilogy of films of women seeking fulfillment from without, and it's a tough watch.  It is slow and strange and it is hard to believe, but it is often enjoyable and certainly thought-provoking.  It seems best to view it as an allegory.  Our protagonist's search for love is expressed through her desperate attempts to find a holiday romance.  There is very little hope that anything genuine will occur, and when she comes close to achieving what she wants she proves herself rather difficult to love.  So a pattern is established of increased effort and diminishing returns.  With each man she pursues, failure to succeed in love seems more inevitable.  It must get harder each time to maintain her determination, but her optimism never wains.  And here is where the true message lies.  More than being about love, I felt the story was a study of hope and optimism.  Various characters advise each other "give it a try", as if trying doesn't cost anything.  For me this raised the question "when is it better not to try?"

So, for a film that purports to be about finding nirvana through love, I was surprised that its commentary on the subject was very slight.  I lost interest by the end, as the attempts became more ridiculous and more futile.  I felt it touched on the issue that love is not something one should seek to receive, rather something one should seek to give...and yet it didn't quite address this fully.

See this film if you like frequent nudity and sexual themes.  There are many laugh out loud moments, but overall it is pretty tough-going and the rewards are few.

Stories We Tell film review

The story Sarah Polley tells exposes her family history, in particular the legacy of her mother, in a way that is heartfelt, funny and very very smart.  For what does it really expose?  What is true?  What is truth?

Polley's film is ostensibly a documentary, but the truths it reveals are often somewhat subjective.  Which are the truest?  There are different points of view presented here and the film's conclusion draws attention to the importance of subjectivity in storytelling.  And while this is an interesting point to ponder, I found the conclusion somewhat forced.  Yes, the stories told are subjective.  But, together I found they painted a very clear picture.  For Polley's angle to work, I felt there ought to have been greater contradictions on offer.  As it was, the few contradictions were so minor that they did not provide the necessary weight for such a grand conclusion.  And anyway, pointing out that stories tell us as much about the storyteller as the subjects is...kind of obvious.

This film, though, is quite remarkable.  I loved the way in which the pieces slowly fall into place.  Polley leads us along a path just open enough to keep us guessing.  Her timing is perfect as sets up the clues one by one before surprising us with the answers.  Her story is a fascinating one that endears the viewer to her.  Then, revealing that her "documentary" is partly (wholly?) scripted and performed by actors...that is a great way to mess with minds.

See this film for the unique experience of a genre that has not yet been named.  I loved the film and enjoyed its style, but found its message rather basic and less enlightening than I had hoped.

No Holds Bard

No Holds Bard is a one man show in which several of Shakespeare's protagonists meet, and their discourse is thought-provoking, energetic, and often hilarious.  For Michael Hurst it is quite the tour de force.  His characterisations are concise and suitably quirky, while remaining recognisable.  His vocal work is second to none: the richness of his voice, and his aptititude for accents are showcased and the material provides the chance to demonstrate one's whole vocal repertoire.  And for a crowd-pleasing climax, Hurst discovers the hilarity in a one-person fight sequence.  Hurst proves his worth time and again.  It's all very impressive.  But is it good?

Well, it is entertaining.  I liked it.  Shakespeare's words are really quite exquisite and familiarity with his most popular works is rewarded.  The script cleverly weaves Shakespeare's words into new situations.  As for a beginning, middle and end...well that is where this piece is weakest.  There is some sense of story, and a token pithy resolution to reassure the audience that the stage-play format has not been forgotten.  But, actually nothing about the story interested me.

The part of the script I enjoyed most was the tug and tussle and push and pull between Macbeth and Hamlet.  Here they represent two opposing drives: one a man of action, the other a man of grand talk.  Some of their discussions are works of genius.  Macbeth is reliably funny (surprise?!?), and Hamlet is ridiculously foppish (poor guy).  These characters are given the most development, and their interactions with each other are the most interesting and edifying.  I wondered whether a better play might have been one in which these two found were kept front and centre throughout.

Special mention to the lighting design for achieving some bold effects, with smooth, precise transitions.

See this play for a laugh and to hear some beautiful words.  Michael Hurst's performance is world class and makes the show gripping from start to finish.

Before Midnight film review

Richard Linklater's third installment in the story of Jesse and Celine feels very personal.  There is a confessional quality to the writing that had me imagining this might be a big screen version of somebody's diary.  Certainly, it seems that this series has become a labour of love for many of the parties involved.  This sense even translates to the audience, many of whom will feel connected to the material because of its legacy.

Whether or not the film tells the story you had hoped it might, this film so trusts its audience to go along with it that I believe many will.  I was spellbound from start to finish.  I did not want it to end.  There is a lot of backstory to fill-in in a short time, and this is achieved through rather densely packed dialogue.  In lesser hands the dialogue could feel clunky or start to drag, but Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy always keep the ball in the air and the mind quick, and appear to constantly surprise each other with sudden shifts in mood.  The other large part of what makes the long and wordy discussions work is that they are often filmed in one take.  The freedom this affords the actors is invaluable.

See this film if you like rapid-fire dialogue and have been following Jesse and Celine for a while.  The style of these films will appeal to those who enjoy confessional singer-songwriters and live theatre with clever speeches.

White Rabbit Red Rabbit theatre review

White Rabbit Red Rabbit was written in 2010 by Iran's Nassim Soleimanpour, and he describes it not as a play, but as an experiment.  At tonight's performance, there were 120 present - including the actor and the writer.  

[spoiler alert]

The writer's presence is an interesting thing to note.  His voice stands in for the voice of God - and perhaps whether or not you count his presence depends on your theology.  But whether or not Soleimanpour is present, his instructions remain clear.  At least...they are represented as such by the actor reading the text.  But as an audience, we choose whether we believe her entirely.  I did.  We all did.  We believed that every word she spoke was written in the past.  Every instruction she gives is ordained by a higher power - and this trust is evident in our ready participation in the action: we obey the orders we are given.  What would it take to provoke disobedience?  Where is the line we refuse to cross?  How much do you value human life?  What is your responsibility, and what is not?

I am proud to say the audience I belonged to did not allow our actor to risk too much of herself.  And she was our actor.  Jess Holly Bates connected honestly with every one of us.  She made eye contact with each audience member as we were proving ourselves countable and making ourselves accountable.  She gained our trust and she gained our respect and we would stand up for her before we would stand up for ourselves.

Did this remarkable piece demonstrate how nationalism happens and how dictators maintain their power?  Does it also comment on religious fanatics and the dangers of legalism?  Does it raise questions of humanity vs society?  Does it challenge us to think and to act and to live?  Probably.  This artwork achieves many things in its 60ish minute, not least of which was the spine-tingling terror I felt at its climax.

Bravo.

See this experiment to learn a few things about what life is and how it works.

Nick: An Accidental Hero theatre review

Nick is a poignant piece of theatre and on more than one occasion had me crying uncontrollably.  I was that guy loudly blowing his nose in the quiet bits.  Wisely, though, the prevailing mood is very light and frequently hilarious.  That the tone can flick from one mood to another so quickly and adeptly comes down to the skill of all-in-one performer Renee Lyons.  Lyons switches between characters with utmost control and constant clarity about whom she now embodies.

Another wise choice in this production is that no one character dominates, unless maybe our title character does.  You see, Lyons spends very little time as Nick himself.  We understand his situation by the dialogue addressed to him by a succession of characters, each of whom has their moment in the spotlight.  This conceit is the perfect solution to the problem that plagues many one-woman (or one-man) shows: why is this person talking?  Monologues don't exist in real life.  And one-sided dialogue is tricky.  If the actor is playing two characters...why not just have two actors?  Nick has no monologues.  That really works for me.

At just 50 minutes long, it is remarkable that Nick packs in as much as it does.  It tells the story of Nick Chisholm, covering about 15 years of his life.  That's efficient story-telling!  It focuses on the aftermath of an accident that leaves him paralysed.  It's a life-changing event and it affects those around him in different ways.  Far from being a sob-story, this piece celebrates strength of character and an enduring will to live, and live life to its fullest.  The characters who guide this journey are somewhat stereotypical, but in the way that we recognise them.  This supports the underlying message that any one of us could find ourselves in a story like this.  

See this play if you need to be reminded how to be compassionate.  Or if you just want to see some exceptional theatre.