The Flowers Of War

I’m surprised that I want to write about Zhang Yimou’s The Flowers Of War. Not because it was bad. Quite the contrary. It’s actually very good. Stunning in fact. But I’m surprised that I’ve chosen to write about this particular war film for the simple fact that it’s not the best I’ve seen, yet something about it has really gripped me, and I can’t stop thinking about it. Yimou, of House Of Flying Daggers and Hero fame has crafted something quite spectacular here.

Based on the novel ‘13 Flowers of Nanjing,’ by Geling Yang, The Flowers Of War tells the story of a group of young Catholic girls trapped in their convent during the “Rape of Nanjing” at the time of the Second Sino-Japanese War. A mortician from the United States, John Miller (played, surprisingly, by Christian Bale) stumbles upon the convent, posing as a Priest to protect the girls, whilst offering shelter to a group of flamboyant prostitutes from Nanjing’s red light district. As Japanese forces conquer the city, Miller vows to get the girls out of Nanjing before they are all killed. The plot sounds a tad ridiculous and I was wary of investing time in it, but Yimou’s war epic makes for fascinating and compelling viewing. 

John Miller (Bale) poses as a Priest to help the convent children.

First off, I have to say the cinematography is breath taking. Chinese film has really pushed the boundaries in recent years, rivalling, even surpassing Hollywood in visual terms. Yimou throws us right into the deep end from the ‘get go,’ plunging us into the heart of battle. The violence never feels gratuitous or melodramatic; Yimou wants to show us the unflinching barbarities of war, its representation one of the best I’ve ever seen. Yimou counteracts this chaos with beautiful, lingering shots of the convent that the girls are trapped in, a safe haven amongst this hell. I particularly enjoyed the transition of steady, sweeping shots in the convent to the shakiness of the handheld camera outside the church walls. Yimou disorientates us when he explores the streets of Nanjing, yet that’s exactly as it should be, and the film is stronger because of it. Maybe this is where Chinese cinema surpasses Hollywood. Yimou is not afraid to show us events that many directors would usually shy away from. The brutality of the Japanese soldiers is played out in front of us in excruciating detail, whether it be the execution of children or the rape of women. There's no holding back here and some of it is incredibly uncomfortable to watch as I'm sure was intended.

I love Yimou’s use of colour. It plays a large role in the film whether it be the dark, dusty greys in war torn Nanjing or the incredible multitude of colours that radiate from the stained glass windows of the convent. Topped off with a simple, haunting and delicate score, The Flowers Of War is a technical triumph.

Prostitutes from Nanjing's Red Light District arrive at the Convent seeking shelter from the invading Japanese.

That's not to say the film is without its problems. Christian Bale has always been a ‘hit or miss’ actor for me. I could rave for hours about his performances in films like The Fighter, American Psycho and Empire Of The Sun yet others like The New World, Reign of Fire and Little Women leave a lot to be desired. Even his portrayal of Bruce Wayne in Christopher Nolan’s ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’ isn’t really praise-worthy. There have always been stronger actors in the Batman films that have reached new heights of brilliance while Bale seems to get left behind. His performance in The Flowers Of War is a mix of both, and I think he’s hindered by the script. Having a high profile Hollywood actor play the part of John Miller is somewhat confusing. Why, I kept asking myself, does he have to be American? Nationality plays a big part in the film as you’ll see if you watch it, yet I don’t think the mergence of Chinese and American cinema is quite as smooth as it could be, and it shows here in some respect. Some of the dialogue between characters is jilted at times as a result of this. Having said that, there are elements of truth here. Americans did, apparently, attempt to help Chinese civilians when it emerged that the Japanese were not attacking ‘Westerners.’ It doesn’t help, of course, that Bale (in my opinion) is once again ‘out-acted’ (if there is such a phrase) by his young Chinese co-stars who turn in some ridiculously good performances as the young convent girls. Special mention must go to Huang Tianyuan and Zhang Xinyi. It must be hard, at a young age, to appreciate the gravity of themes and issues explored in such films, yet these two are totally believable in their portrayal of two girls clinging to survival in war. 

The prostitutes and convent girls meet for the first time.

The arrival of the prostitutes is interesting. Many of the reviews I have read claim that the film’s more pressing issues arrive along with these new characters. I disagree. The group dynamic between the convent girls and prostitutes, the ‘saints’ and the ‘sinners,’ is intriguing to watch and fascinating to explore. Of course, a sub-plot regarding the mutual attraction between John Miller and Yu Mo (Ni Ni) is included and rushed through, which adds unnecessarily to the two hour and twenty minutes run time, yet it’s a small issue.

Yu Mo and John Miller.

Other scenes in the film seem out of place, ridiculous even. Two of the prostitutes, for example, flee the convent and journey to their brothel to gather strings for their instrument so they can play to the dying soldier who they are caring for in their hideout. Another scene where the prostitutes play a song for the convent girls descends into something of a farce and there’s no real place for it in context. I hate to say this, but it’s laughable. By all means, inject humour where humour can be injected, but don’t force it on your audience. The Flowers Of War sets its sombre tone too early on in the film to then throw such strange and weird scenes at us as it heads towards its climax.

The Flowers Of War is quite special. Deep, emotional and thought provoking, Zhang Yimou continues his winning streak here. It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely something you should see. The film only has a 41% approval rating on review site, Rotten Tomatoes, which, quite frankly, baffles me. Many have compared this to City Of Life And Death, another film that deals with similar events. Apparently, it’s superior, although I cannot judge as I have yet to see it. Judging The Flowers Of War on its own merits, however, I can safely say that this comes highly recommended. 

Rating: * * * *

The Avengers (Marvel)

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS.

I think I would be wary to claim The Avengers – yes, it’s called The Avengers. None of that Marvel Avengers Assemble rubbish – is my favourite superhero film of all time. In fact, I’d be hesitant to say it’s my favourite Marvel film. I’m not saying that it isn’t, but upon exiting the cinema, I was so ecstatic, so fulfilled by Joss Whedon’s epic, I think I would have been willing to say it was the best film ever made. Having taken some time to think about it, however, I think I’m in a better position to write a critical response. 

To put it bluntly, The Avengers is fantastic. Really fantastic. Director Joss Whedon has created a fast paced, expertly written, state of the art, cinema romp: the very definition, in my opinion, of what ‘going to the movies’ is all about. The Avengers brings together Marvel’s best. The Hulk, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor (amongst others), must join as one in an attempt to stop an alien invasion of Earth. I doubt this bonanza will soften the hardest of Whedon’s critics or convert the greatest of 'superhero genre doubters,' but for those who have invested their time in Marvel’s output in past years, this is the ultimate payoff. 

Iron Man and Captain America... in the same film.
Pretty cool, right?

The plot, of course, is complete barmy, but somehow it doesn’t really matter. I doubt anyone was really expecting a groundbreaking story anyway. The Avengers is very much an ensemble piece. A lot of the film’s best moments stem from scenes where our heroes interact with one another. The introduction of each character is quite pacey. Thor, for example, doesn’t appear until nearly thirty minutes in. Captain America, by that time, has already taken part in one of the films smaller action sequences. As a result, the first half is very dialogue heavy. This is by no means a criticism. The Avengers soars because it isn’t tied down by an origin story and I enjoyed the first hour a lot more than the second; Whedon highlights the disparity between heroes, the clash of egos and the brawls that ensue. Indeed, a standout moment for me is the brilliantly choreographed fight between Thor and Iron Man. It may seem a strange moment to highlight but this conflict turns the whole superhero genre on its head. Our characters, it seems, are a little (or a lot!) self centred. Suddenly it’s all about them, and not, as we might come to expect from this type of film, about good overcoming adversity, at least not right away. As Bruce Banner states mid-way through, “We’re not a team. We’re a time bomb.” 

The Hulk rips into an F-35 Fighter Plane.

Whedon’s script is perfectly acted by the film’s main players. Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk delivers the standout performance. He plays a more subtle Bruce Banner than Edward Norton or Eric Bana (the two actors who played the previous two incarnations) but somehow manages to hold more gravitas and the decision to use motion capture gives Ruffalo’s green monster a humanity that was distinctly lacking in Marvel’s other big screen adaptations. Robert Downey Jr, of course, has the best lines, even though it is the Hulk that provides many of the film’s genuine laugh out loud moments. The weakest of all, I think, has to be Chris Evans as Captain America, but perhaps that’s because his character is solemn throughout the entire film. Chris Hemsworth’s performance is good, but I don’t think the script allows him to explore his character’s emotional turmoil. After all, it is his brother who attempts to destroy humanity. Whedon’s script hints at this anxiety, but never fully develops it. Oddly, Thor is sidelined too much and given the least to do. A minor criticism, but a noticeable one. Scarlett Johansson excels in her role as Black Widow. She has, without a doubt, the best 'introduction' scene. Again, I would have liked to see more of her character. Tom Hiddleston, one of Britain’s biggest rising stars, is excellent as Loki, balancing menace and humour, sincerity and malignance. Hawkeye, however, emerges as my favourite. Jeremy Renner is neither outstanding nor terrible in his part, but his contribution to many of the action sequences is fantastic. Everyone brings their own quality to The Avengers. Take one character out of the film, and I doubt it would be as good.

The Avengers Assemble in the film's
final act.

The Avengers’ third act is relentless. Whedon provides die-hard enthusiasts with enough action to sate their hunger until the next slew of sequels are released. More importantly, he has fun with his film. Characters established, plot in full flow, Whedon unleashes a bombardment of good, old, cinematic entertainment. 

Funny, thrilling and downright awesome, The Avengers is the first true summer blockbuster to hit our screens this year. It certainly deserves to be a hit, and god willing, the next instalment of Marvel sequels will culminate in Avengers 2. I, for one, cannot wait to see these characters interact once more. The Avengers demands multiple viewings. When I see it again, my favourite characters will no doubt change and my highlights will probably differ somewhat but that's the fun of it all. The Avengers is by no means perfect, but as superhero films go, it’s pretty darn cool.

Love Never Dies

Love Never Dies, the sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s, The Phantom of the Opera has somewhat of a chequered history. The unjustly maligned show was plagued with negative reviews before it had even opened to the public in March 2010. So passionate were ‘phans’ of the original, that the idea of a continuation seemed absurd, many carrying out personal vendettas against the show, forming a protest group aptly named Love Should Die. I saw the show twice in London and loved it. In a time where ‘juke-box’ theatre is taking over the West End, this sweeping, gothic fantasy was a refreshing piece that carried the storyline that many people know and love into new and daring places. The damage, unfortunately, had already been done, and Love Never Dies closed after a disappointing 18 month run. Not one to give up, Lloyd Webber, convinced this work was amongst the best he had written (and I agree!), allowed an Australian company, lead by Simon Phillips, to create an entirely different production. The result can be seen in a worldwide DVD and Blu-Ray release of this astounding, incredible piece of theatre. 

 

Love Never Dies picks up the story ten years after the events of The Phantom of the Opera have occurred. The Phantom flees Paris for New York where he lives amongst the freaks and oddities of Coney Island. Yearning for his love, he lures Christine Daaé, her husband Raoul and their young son Gustave to his glorious world in an attempt to win back her love, unknowingly setting off a chain of events that will have devastating consequences for them all.

Coney Island in Love Never Dies

Phillips’ production really is a sight to behold and I can only imagine what it is like to experience its magnificence in a live theatre. My one criticism of the London production was that it never used its greatest asset: Coney Island itself. Endless possibilities were ignored and forgotten in Love’s first incarnation, a point that Phillips addresses by making sure that we see the Phantom’s world in all of its glory. Gabriela Tylesova, set designer for this production, uses Webber’s material in the same way as Maria Bjornson did for Phantom, creating an incredible platform for the actors to use. Before we’ve even heard a single note, this production succeeds where London essentially failed. Love Never Dies’ mise-en-scene links this story to its predecessor, making its role as a sequel quite evident. See the ‘Carousel Scene’ during ‘The Coney Island Waltz’ as a prime example of Love Never Dies’ mysterious and enchanting roots. Visually, this particular production cannot be faulted. Every space is used, filled with gorgeous imagery that thrusts us into this dazzling, dangerous and dark world. I always felt the London stage felt a little bare at times, so for me, this is a major improvement.

Ben Lewis as The Phantom

Ben Lewis as the Phantom and Anna O’Byrne as Christine have been harshly scrutinised by many who saw the London production. After all, Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess from the original are so greatly known. I, however, think it is unfair to compare the cast. Karimloo is fantastic, yes, and I certainly think he has the better voice, but I think I prefer Lewis’ portrayal of the Phantom. He brings a sense of menace (that the Phantom should possess) back to the role, a feat I missed in Karimloo’s performance. Lewis manages to strike a balance between the crazed genius and the lonely man, emphasising the third dimensional aspect to his character. The same can be said for O’Byrne, a talented actress who oozes star quality whilst bringing forth her maternal nature for scenes between Christine and Gustave. Likewise, Simon Gleeson makes Raoul’s transition from hero to tortured soul all the more believable. The way in which these characters have changed from Phantom are unexpected, yet in context, make complete sense. A lot of the criticism of Love derives from where Webber takes his characters, yet I do not understand why this particular plot point has been targeted. A lot can happen in ten years; people can change and not always for the better.

The book has also attracted criticism from those who wish Love Never Dies had never come to fruition. Personally, I do not understand these negative comments. There may be a few plot holes or moments where believability must be stretched in order to accommodate for certain twists in the story, yet this is no reason as to why Love should be persecuted. In other words, it is still possible to enjoy the show if you take it at face value. After all, Love Never Dies is not the only show where suspension of disbelief is necessary.

'The Beauty Underneath'

Standout scenes, for me, have to include ‘The Beauty Underneath’ and ‘Til I Hear You Sing,’ featuring stunning performances from all the cast members involved. The DVD itself is incredibly filmed. Many times I forgot that I was watching a stage show. Universal Pictures treat this performance like a film, omitting applause from the audience and cutting scene changes so that there is little interruption. As a fan of theatre myself, I am hugely interested in the ‘mechanics’ of a show and how it runs, so this was a disappointment, although I understand why Universal made this decision. Without these scene changes, however, Love Never Dies is a little too ‘pacey.’ At times I longed for a pause, however small, so I could take in what I had just witnessed, yet as soon as the dialogue stops, the music begins and the next song is sung. I found this particularly evident of the ‘Look With Your Heart / Beneath a Moonless Sky / Once Upon Another Time’ scene. Whilst I agree that a show should not ‘hang around’ for too long, there are many moments that should be enjoyed. This particular film does not always grant us the opportunity. It is, however, a minor criticism in what is otherwise a terrific example of how theatre can be transferred to the screen. 

Now that a DVD has been released of Love Never Dies, it can find a wider audience. Whether it will appeal to a mass market remains to be seen, but its integration from ‘cult status’ (for lack of a better term) into the mainstream is increasingly evident. Having streamed in cinemas across America and released on DVD across the world, Love Never Dies is finally finding its feet. Essentially, Love Should Die has failed. There may never be another production of Love Never Dies on stage again, yet now there is a permanent record of a fantastic show widely available. Many can say to themselves that the story ended after the Phantom disappeared. Yet we now all know that the story continues, regardless of personal opinion. After seeing the Melbourne production of Love Never Dies, I am glad that these events do continue, if only to join these fascinating characters one last time. Love Never Dies is by no means perfect, yet it is certainly one of the better shows to hit our theatres in recent years.

You can purchase Love Never Dies on Blu-Ray here, and DVD here. 

The Walking Dead: Season 2, Part 1

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE TELEVISION SERIES AND THE GRAPHIC NOVELS.

After seven episodes, The Walking Dead arrived at its mid-season finale this week. Tying together several loose threads that have run throughout the season, the final episode was a tragic mix of action, suspense and devastation. Then again, what else would you expect from a show that broke records for the most watched drama in cable television history? The second season of AMC’s hit show has unfairly garnered a lot of criticism, spurred, I believe, by the sudden departure of Frank Darabont and the dreaded budget cuts that, in return, have allowed a further two seasons of Mad Men. (Not that I'm complaining!) Some say the show is moving too slowly, whilst others believe it has become nothing but ‘a soap opera with zombies.’ I’m obviously watching a different show to many others for The Walking Dead has done nothing but significantly mature this season, exploring character depth and dealing with the darker issues of survival. In no way am I stating that The Walking Dead is perfect, but hit the internet, and you’ll get an unjustified critical response that in no way represents the show itself. 

Season two, so far, has turned its back on the action sequences that made the first the success it was. A risky move, yes, but one that has paid off. Glen Mazzara, The Walking Dead’s new show runner, has used these controversial budget cuts as an advantage. Slowing the show down has allowed Mazzara to focus on the genesis of the disintegration of society and how the group’s dynamic has changed as a result. Scenes like Shane’s sacrifice of Otis when faced with certain death or Rick and Lori’s discussion about letting their son die when he is shot, to save him growing up in such a horrific world, are, I feel, much more of a reflection of the psychological impact of an apocalypse then other shows have explored.

Maggie is introduced this season.

The first seven episodes focus primarily on the search for young Sophia, who is separated from the group after a surprise attack from ‘walkers’ on Interstate 85. Yes, this plot did drag, and its culmination could be seen a mile off, yet in its execution were glimpses of brilliance that really give us, as viewers, an idea of how ambitious this show actually is. Much of the action takes place on Hershel Greene’s farm, which, in itself, opens up some interesting plot points; the ethical and religious aspects of such storylines were ones that I was not expecting yet they were welcome after finding their place on the show. From what I’ve read online, many fans are calling for the group to move away from the farm when this season resumes. (Apparently they’re too safe there). I hope they stay a little while longer, if only to explore this host of new characters further. Hershel himself, played excellently by Scott Wilson, has a lot more to contribute while Glenn and Maggie’s relationship, still in its infancy, needs to be developed. 

Rick and Lori consider letting their son die.

Andrew Lincoln as protagonist Rick, continues to impress as does Sarah Wayne Callies as Lori and Chandler Riggs as their son, Carl. Acting wise, Riggs has significantly improved upon last season, something the producers of the show have obviously recognised by rewarding him with more screen time. However, Jon Bernthal as Shane, in my opinion, is incredibly annoying. Whilst he has the ability to carry his scenes with ease, there’s nothing about him that makes me care for his character. Shane is a tortured soul, there is no doubt about that, but his progression towards becoming a ‘killing machine’ does not resonate with what Mazzara has done with other characters. Shane has already been kept alive longer than in the books. Maybe Robert Kirkman, creator of the graphic novels, was on to something when they killed him off at the end of the first issue. 

A special mention must go to Norman Reedus, who portrays Daryl Dixon. Having been bumped to a season regular, the writers have done wonders for his character, hinting at compassionate sides to his personality, something that is mirrored in his constant search for Sophia. It will be interesting to see what direction Mazzara will take Reedus’ character now that Sophia has been found dead. Her absence was, of course, the driving force behind his calmer state. 

The show differs from the books.

Perhaps much of the criticism directed at the show has come from the fans of the graphic novels, who believe the series is not what it should have been. I’m not a fan of the books themselves, having only read the first volume, yet I understand that the pace moves quickly; too quickly for my liking. Anyone expecting a complete rehash of the novels is being naïve. I’ve always said that what makes good reading does not always make good viewing. The show now has an identity of its own whilst loosely following the plot points of the novels. This, I think, is a good thing, for Mazzara’s show is no longer dictated to by Kirkman’s original source material. Many things on the page cannot be done on screen and vice versa, yet I believe anyone who critically responds to the show should judge it as a separate canon to the books. It’s a shame that The Walking Dead brand has such a reputation; the series, as a result, will never be as widely accepted.

The first half of The Walking Dead’s second season has been incredible, ending with a shocking, emotional climax that will have everyone talking until the show resumes in February. Although I’m not sure of what the time lapse will be between the first and second half, it is certain that things have been set up nicely for its continuation. Mazzara has promised new characters, new locations and new events. Fans, of course, are clamouring for the introduction of a certain Governor, although I hope any criticism does not force the writers to hasten events in order to get to certain points in the narrative. I’ve been enjoying this slow approach with the odd action sequence thrown in. Hopefully the fallout from Sophia’s demise will not be brushed aside. Mazzara has set things in place for a great deal of conflict. I just hope the second half of this season can live up to the quality of what we’ve seen so far. Keep it up AMC. With The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Hell On Wheels, you’re fast becoming the new HBO, and readers of this blog will know how I feel about that network!

The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall

Last night, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera, was broadcast live to cinemas across the world as part of its 25^th anniversary celebrations. Specially staged in London’s Royal Albert Hall, this incredible event brought people out in their droves to see the most anticipated theatrical event of the year. (The screening I attended was a complete sell out). The atmosphere in the hall must have been electrifying, yet the cinema streams had their advantages. Attendees got to see everything in high definition, up close and personal, and came away having seen something better than Joel Schumacher’s 2004, Hollywood version starring Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum. The credits began to roll, and I stepped out of our screen thinking I had been there in person. The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall was something special, and something all fans, or as the die-hards call themselves, ‘phans’, should see.

The stream kicked off with a trailer for the Phantom sequel, Love Never Dies. As much as I like the London version, the quick flashes we saw of the Melbourne production were fantastic, especially on the big screen. (And by the way, ‘Beneath A Moonless Sky’ sounds epic in surround sound). After a quick voiceover announcing the show would soon be available to purchase on DVD and Blu-Ray after a stint in cinemas, the stream cut to another trailer advertising the recordings of the Royal Albert Hall production and a new Phantom tour in 2012. Andrew Lloyd Webber never misses a trick; god knows how many people were viewing this stream across the world! After a short documentary detailing the genesis of Phantom, which lasted around twenty minutes, a title card emerged announcing that the show would begin ‘in five minutes.’ Cue last minute toilet trips for everybody. The live feed eventually flickered to life, and we were greeted with a stunning view of the Royal Albert Hall, which looks considerably bigger on screen than it is in real life.  

The show began. Immediately, it became clear that those who had opted for the cinema screening had the best seats to the show. The close-up shots of the actors made this look more like a film, yet somehow, it never lost the magic that makes Phantom the theatrical experience that it is. The emotion, the clarity, the sheer brilliance of everybody’s acting ability was visible for all to see. I can’t imagine what it was like for those opposite the stage, across the other side of the Albert Hall. It’s easy to be carried away by the magnitude of such an event. Yes, it has the flashy special effects and the pyrotechnics, yet its brilliance lies in the two main actors: Ramin Karimloo as the Phantom and Sierra Boggess as his obsession, Christine. Their performances were nothing short of breathtaking. Our screening came with German subtitles, a potential annoyance, yet they were soon forgotten and I found myself so immersed in what was happening on screen that there were moments when I would question whether the subtitles had appeared on screen for a scene that had just occurred. 

Karimloo joins the cast once again as The Phantom.

Whoever follows Karimloo’s Phantom is going to have a tough job. I was lucky enough to see him twice in the title role at Her Majesty’s where the original show has been playing for 25 years, and saw him twice in Love Never Dies at the Adelphi before it (criminally) shut. How wrong I was to presume that Karimloo’s performance would be a ‘rehash’ of his earlier days as the iconic character. Karimloo brought an entirely new interpretation to the role, a renewed energy that really built upon the third dimensional aspects of such a character. The tears on his face in moments of silence, the anguish in his eyes, the yearning in his body language: these subtle yet powerful moments could only be appreciated by those in cinemas and the first few rows of the Albert Hall. Obviously I cannot comment on the show from the perspective of those ‘in the Gods’ as I was not there, yet I hope they can appreciate Karimloo’s achievements. The final lair sequence from ‘Down Once More…’ onwards can be described as nothing short of devastating. You could have heard a pin drop in our cinema. The idea of a live stage stream to cinemas could have resulted in a disaster, but it was anything but, something which bodes very well for the forthcoming Love Never Dies DVD. 

Boggess and Karimloo in 'Love Never Dies.'

Boggess, in her role as Christine was also phenomenal. Karimloo and Boggess have real chemistry, something which has been allowed to develop through Love Never Dies. It pays off here. The graveyard sequence where Christine sings ‘Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again’ was chilling, and rightfully earned Boggess a rapturous round of applause from the audience at the Albert Hall, and I imagine, right across the world. Hadley Fraser as Raoul was also brilliantly cast to complete the perfect trio for such a spectacle. 

The staging, as was to be expected, was pretty simple, relying heavily on projections, with the odd prop or two, yet this did not detract at all from the experience. In fact, it probably worked better than it would have done had every prop from the original production made an appearance. The boat sequence was played out almost exactly how it is in the original, and the chandelier, although already raised, was revealed in spectacular fashion. The projections, in a way, enhanced the show. For example, Christine reads a letter from the Phantom and we see him writing it, on the screen in the background. The Phantom’s abrupt appearance at the end of the 'Masquerade' sequence is enlarged by the screens, and as such, impose a genuine threat upon all of us. His skull mask was pretty creepy! My favourite use of projections was at the end of ‘Think Of Me.’ In the original, Christine turns her back to us and faces back stage, as if she is facing the audience of the Paris Opera House. Here, she does the same thing, although the audience at the Albert Hall was projected onto the screens to make it look as if she was singing to them, before the ‘back stage scene.' It was a nice touch, one in which the audience was physically brought into the show itself.

Favourite scenes for me had to include ‘The Music of the Night’, the boat sequence, the finale from ‘Point Of No Return’ and ‘Masquerade.’ ‘Masquerade’ is a big number anyway, but nothing compares to three, full companies singing it and blasting off the roof in the process. It’s nothing short of epic, especially against the orchestra which stretched the length of the stage. Perhaps this was one let down of being in the cinema. There was so much going on in the ‘Masquerade’ sequence that the cameras didn’t know where to look. A series of quick cuts were frustrating at times.

The only problem we had with our stream was a short break where the signal dropped. In the mean time, we received quick flashes of ‘The Gospel Channel’ (much to the humour of the audience) as the cinema tried to regain the picture, which they did within a minute, and thankfully, it was during a part where no one was really bothered. (the ‘Don Juan’ rehearsal scene, if I’m not mistaken).

The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall really was a phenomenal event and one which can be watched over and over again. Phantom has survived the West End for 25 years now and shows no sign of abating. The most successful piece of entertainment ever keeps going strong and it’s no wonder why. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s score has entranced generations of people, and will, I’m sure, entrance generations to come.

You can purchase The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall on DVD here and Blu-Ray here. The CD recording is also available here.

You can purchase the Melbourne production of Love Never Dies on DVD here and Blu-Ray here.

9/11: Ten Years Later (CBS)

This post is not really a review. It is more a commentary on a stunning documentary about 9/11. I urge you all to watch.

In 2001, two French film makers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet planned to make a documentary on a rookie fire-fighter, from his journey as a ‘probie’ to a fully qualified member of the New York Fire Department. That fire-fighter was Tony Benetatos, a young man who ‘always wanted to be a hero.’ For weeks, Benetatos’ moves were filmed by the Naudet brothers as he fought small fires throughout the city. Then, one September morning, at a routine gas leak call, Jules Naudet heard the roar of a jet engine. Pointing his camera to the sky, Jules captured the only piece of footage of American Airlines 11 slamming into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. What followed was an unprecedented series of events that would change our world forever. Jules followed the fire-fighters as they arrived on the scene and as such, caught the only film recorded from inside the towers themselves. For two hours in 2002, CBS and BBC viewers sat glued to their screens when the Naudet’s film, 9/11, finally aired. Now, ten years on, with the memory of September 11^th still as raw as ever in our minds, Jules and Gedeon Naudet have returned with an ‘extended edition’, a ‘catch up’ with the fire-fighters, documenting how 9/11 has changed their lives. What they uncovered were shocking stories of how that fateful day is still claiming lives and how many men are still living with ‘survivor’s guilt’ as well as stories of hope and courage.  

Ladder 1 is the focus of the Naudet's 9/11.

The aerial views of the Twin Towers’ collapse is disturbing as it is, yet the Naudet’s documentary taps into all of our fears because it offers a glimpse of the perspective from those on the ground. I suppose we could even go so far as to say that it gives the perspective of the firemen themselves. After all, few other documentaries, if any, managed to follow the heroes of that day as they desperately sought to save as many civilians as possible. Even if we cannot fully understand what happened and why, the Naudet’s film allows us to observe these horrors like no other piece of footage that exists.

Whilst the clean-up operation and aftermath of the attack is hinted at in 9/11, there’s no real exploration into the psychological repercussions of such an event and the toll it has taken on the men. Finally, 9/11: Ten Years Later approaches the subject with full force. The original documentary resisted from delivering any kind of political message to its audience. Ten Years Later changes that. The Naudet brothers return to Ladder 1 on Duane Street, only to hear that two of the firemen who featured prominently in their film, have died from cancer, which in turn has been linked to the toxic cloud of dust that covered New York for days. The Naudet’s follow up, then, is a response, if not an attack, to the idea that compensation will not be given for cancer related illnesses. It’s a blatant criticism of a Government that has let their service men down. These stories are overwhelmingly sad. Indeed, the original documentary is now so well known that these men almost feel like our acquaintances.

Joseph Casaliggi re-appears in Ten Years Later.

One of the firemen speaks of how he no longer works for the NYFD because of 9/11, how he is no longer married because of 9/11 and how he is haunted by 343 (the number of firemen who died that day). Although you cannot really ‘review’ a film like this, I must praise the Naudet brothers for raising awareness, for not letting us forget and for informing us about how these firemen are still suffering because of what they saw on September 11^th. A number of fire-fighters, for example, admit that they drink more and that they are still going through counselling. Joseph Casaliggi returns to tell how he wakes up every day, wondering whether he will be told that he has a serious illness. The event, in a way, overshadows what follows. 9/11 itself was huge, but the individual stories of those who survived it are not told. We are not made aware. The Naudet brothers must be commended here for their efforts. 

Tony Benetatos, the 'probie.'

In contrast to this, however, there is still a message of hope that shines through the film. It may be a yearning for the unification that people felt in the days following the attacks but the Naudet brothers show how life can move on, and that we can still look forward whilst remembering the past. Joseph Pfeifer is now the Chief of Counter Terrorism. Tony Benetatos, the 'probie', is now a member of the Decontamination Unit of the fire service, a husband and father, while Dennis Tardio is a grandfather after retiring. Life, as they say, moves on.

The Naudet brothers, at the close of Ten Years Later, sum up what Nicholas Cage as John McLoughlin concludes at the end of Oliver Stone’s World Trade Centre: "9/11 showed us what human beings are capable of. The evil, yeah, sure. But it also brought out the goodness we forgot could exist. People taking care of each other for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. It's important for us to talk about that good, to remember. 'Cause I saw all of it that day."

9/11 is not a documentary that attempts to tell us why this event happened. It is purely a truthful account of a heroic group of men that worked together and made a sacrifice for their country. Ten Years Later offers us an insight into what these men went through after 9/11. If any documentary on 9/11 is worth watching, it’s this one.

Photos property of CBS and the Naudet Brothers: No infringement intended.

The Troll Hunter

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

Another ‘found footage’ film has made it onto our cinema screens this week. Troll Hunter, a Norwegian ‘mockumentary,’ written and directed by André Øvredal, follows a group of students who set out to make a documentary about a supposed Bear poacher, Hans. As the trio secretly follow and film Hans, they uncover a truth more shocking than anyone could ever imagine. Hans is a hunter, working for the Norwegian Government, killing trolls that have escaped their ‘territory.’ Unlike Apollo 18, this film treats its ‘found footage’ style as an asset. Surprisingly, Øvredal has crafted a little gem here, and while it may not achieve mainstream success, it will most certainly earn a cult following and rightly deserves it status as one of the better films of summer 2011.

Troll Hunter is not a horror and it doesn’t pretend to be. Part drama, part comedy, part social satire, Hunter works because of its tongue-in-cheek attitude towards itself. As a piece of film, it shines due to its ability to never take itself too seriously. Maybe this is what sets it apart from its Hollywood counterparts. There’s a sense of uniqueness here, a sense of foreign originality which is all too lacking in film these days. Yes, we are indulged with beautiful shots of the Norwegian landscape, but its genius stems from more than its patriotic, loving scenes of its homeland. Hollywood conformities are ignored and whilst the ending is predictable because of the way it is filmed, the rest is unpredictable, thrilling, and at times, down right menacing.  

Considering Øvredal shot Troll Hunter on a challenging budget of US $3.5 million, the special effects are of the highest standard. The creature designs in this remind me of Guillermo del Toro’s work on his own masterpiece, Pan’s Labyrinth. Combined with sweeping shots of Norway’s spectacular scenery and Hunter contains stunning cinematography that really adds a sense of scale to events. Although I was quite critical of the style in my previous review of Apollo 18, the ‘found footage’ aspect really gives the film a raw, authentic feel and is an excellent example of how this doesn't only have to be employed in horror films.

Creature designs reminscent of Guillermo del Toro's work.

Øvredal has fun with the creature’s ‘look.’ He is not concerned with how scary they seem. Indeed, the physicality of these monsters border on the humorous. Øvredal focuses on an ‘event’ in the film and its repercussions, rather than how he expects his audience to feel. This, in a way, adds to the realism of the picture and helps with the development of its characters. Jumping at times from the hilarious, to the tense, to the absurd, it all somehow works. Keep an eye out for the slight pokes at Hollywood blockbusters: Hans attempts to lure one of the trolls out of hiding using a sheep as bait, an obvious throwback to the infamous scene in Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, whilst a sequence where our heroes are fleeing an attack in their car is almost identical to the Tyrannosaurus Rex chase. Moments like this, with an underlying subtle humour, is where Troll Hunter excels.

I suppose UK and US audiences cannot fully appreciate the more ‘knowledgeable’ parts of the film’s humour. Hans is played by Otto Jespersen, a famous (and apparently controversial) Norwegian comedian who may be largely unknown to international viewers. The other main actors seem comfortable in their roles although a largely improvised script has its limitations and issues. When one of their team dies, they do not seem as upset as expected and within minutes they already have a new member joining them for their expedition. For a film that ‘pampers’ its realism, this seems a little disjointed compared to other moments of brilliance.

It may be slow in places, but this post-modern take on local folklore will certainly leave you feeling both satisfied and shocked. 106 minutes may be a little too long for this kind of film and the climax seems a little rushed, but its strengths overshadow any criticisms that it draws. It’s wry, it’s clever and most importantly, it’s fun. Go and see it before the inevitable Hollywood remake is released.

My Rating: * * * *

While I’m here, I must criticise the UK trailer. If you’ve seen it, ignore it. What the distributors of Troll Hunter were thinking when they put out such a ridiculous, cheap, tacky advertisement, I don’t know. In an attempt to make the film appeal to a wider audience, they’ve made it look like some ‘zany’ comedy. Isn’t it better to advertise a film on its own merits rather than trying to mould it into something it’s not? 

The official trailer you SHOULD watch!

 

The awful UK trailer: