Tuesday 16 August 2011

Band of Brothers: Ten Years On


In 2001, HBO screened the stunning, ten part mini-series, Band of Brothers. Clearly inspired by their earlier collaboration on Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg reunited to tell the story of Easy Company of the 2nd Battalion in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment assigned to the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army. (What a mouthful!) This biographical account was to be an intimate look at those who fought and died, side by side for their country, and how, in essence, they became ‘brothers.’ Ten years on and Band of Brothers is still as significant as ever; the themes it explores are so very reminiscent of events in Afghanistan and other current war zones. The emotional and physical sacrifices of these men are analysed in heart wrenching detail. It is, quite simply, a majestic piece of television, hardly surprising seeing as it’s a collaboration between HBO and BBC. Balancing ideas of patriotism and heroism alongside the violence, terror and barbarism of war, Band of Brothers is as painfully realistic as a series can hope to get to real events. In fact, it is essential viewing, if only to gain some sort of idea of what the Second World War was like. Yes, some scenes may have been created or exaggerated for dramatic purposes, yet its structure which approaches these men on a personal level, helps us to realise, if not evaluate, just how much these people went through. Ten years on and Band of Brothers is still one of the best war epics ever made.

Human aspects of war take precedence.
I feel strange about calling the act of war a ‘genre.’ Genre is tricky, and something which can trivialize such a delicate subject. Labelling Band of Brothers as a drama seems much more appropriate and something which I believe contributes to its success. This series works because of its timeless nature and I am not talking about the scenario. The focus of this drama is on the men of Easy Company, their lives and how the deal with the situation that they find themselves thrust into. Strip away the breathtaking, war cinematography and we’re left with ideas and themes that we can all identify with. Death, friendship, romance and divorce are explored throughout. There is a yearning on behalf of these characters to find a meaning for their actions, in a war that seems meaningless, at least from their perspective. The writers of The Pacific, a sister series to Band of Brothers use the same approach. Whilst I do not think that it holds the same ‘classic’ status as its predecessor, the quality of the series and the time it spends identifying and analysing its characters, is un-doubtable. Even in Brothers' moments of extreme action, the camera does not indulge in gratuitous and unnecessary violence. Instead, amongst the sweeping battle shots, each director focuses on these men and their core instinct: survival.

Television has become superior to film.
Clear character arch’s can be seen through the series. From Easy Company’s training in England, where the soldiers are raring to fight, to their horrifying experience at the Battle of the Bulge where a substantial loss of life is experienced, we, as viewers, are able to gain an idea, not just of war itself, but of how these people were forced to adjust to war as a way of life. Shifts in mentality because of war is probably the most major point that Band of Brothers successfully hammers across to its audience. We see these men break before our eyes, we see their collapse of human spirit and as such, the pacifist in each of us questions what war can actually achieve.

I suppose this focus on character is where modern war films lose their focus. This, in turn, highlights the genius of television. A ten hour series allows us to identify with these characters; we are able to understand to some degree, the problems they face and the way they think when it comes to every day challenges in the midst of war. Television allows a project a little more room to breathe (an expression I’ve used in a previous post, but one which I stand by). A two hour war film does not. Whilst there is not much that can rectify this problem, the feat of a series is something which has made television superior to film in recent years. Quality television is not hard to come by now and early series’ such as this one can take credit for this newly emerged trend, although this can be saved for another discussion entirely. I do think, however, that war dramas in the present attempt to rise to the heights that Brothers has set. In other words, the approach to Brothers has been a major influence in war films that have emerged in the past decade.

Picking relative unknowns was a smart move on behalf of HBO. Few actors post-Band of Brothers have gone on to do anything mainstream, with a few exceptions of course. David Schwimmer as Sobel is probably the most recognisable due to his role as Ross Geller on Friends, yet ten years on and he has taken more of an interest in directing, than a position in front of the camera. Damien Lewis is probably the most successful out of the ensemble cast (who gel brilliantly together by the way). Yes, we have those cameos from Simon Pegg and James McAvoy, yet their careers have only taken off in the past few years. Rick Gomez as George Luz stands out for me. He, if anything, enforces the idea of Band of Brothers as a ‘human drama’ with the humour that he brings to the show. These lighter moments, away from the chaos of battle, is where Brothers excels, a welcome contrast to the bleak outlook of war and an insightful look as to how these men managed to cope with the seclusion they experienced and their segregation from their families. 

Shane Taylor plays medic, Eugene Roe.
Band of Brothers encompasses the people who helped the war effort, but who would otherwise be forgotten. The medic, Cpl Eugene Roe, played excellently by Shane Taylor, has an entire episode built around him. (‘Bastogne’ is probably one of the best episodes of the series). People like Roe are not those who predominantly feature in films based on war, yet Brothers actively seeks to include them. Moments like these remind us of why HBO’s drama is so great.

Band of Brothers was never meant to be anything ‘political.’ It was a drama that was meant to inform us of how these people fought and died for their country. Brothers premiered on HBO on 9th September 2001. With the 9/11 attacks occurring forty eight hours later, it was somewhat ignored by the public (compared to its popularity now) in a time of crisis. Eventually, however, Brothers found an audience on DVD, and as such has become more significant then ever due to the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Brothers, in my opinion, now means more in a post 9/11 world than it ever would have meant pre 9/11. The series is needed, if only to help us catch a glimpse of the human dilemmas that face those deployed oversees, today.

Band of Brothers, I believe, will still be relevant in twenty years time. If you haven’t seen it, watch it, for you are missing out on what is, quite frankly, a masterpiece. As for a complete understanding of war, maybe that is impossible. As Pvt. David Kenyon Webster, played by Eion Bailey, says at the end of episode eight, entitled, ‘The Last Patrol’: “I wondered if the people back home would ever know what it cost the soldiers to win this war. In America, things were already beginning to look like peace time. Standard of living was on the rise. Racetracks and night clubs were booming. You couldn’t get a hotel in Miami Beach it was so crowded. How could anyone ever know the price paid by soldiers in terror, agony and bloodshed if they’d never been to places like Normandy, Bastogne, or Haguenau?”



Saturday 13 August 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS

Andy Serkis recently stated in an interview that motion capture is like make-up. The actor acts and the visual effects are applied later. At first I was a little reluctant to embrace this view. Then I saw Serkis' performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the latest ‘reboot’ to hit our cinema screens, brought to us from British director, Rupert Wyatt. Forget James Franco or Freida Pinto. Serkis is the star here and it’s time that motion capture was recognised as a legitimate form of acting. Surely Serkis will receive some sort of recognition for his performance. It is, quite frankly, the best use of motion capture that Weta Digital has ever put onto film, beating even that of James Cameron’s Avatar.

Serkis plays Caesar, an orphaned chimpanzee with enhanced intelligence, made possible through the testing of a genetically engineered retrovirus applied to his mother. As scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) battles to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, he becomes increasingly ignorant of the repercussions that his experiments are having on his test subjects. Soon, the battle for supremacy begins as Caesar leads the rebellion against humanity.

Apes is driven by character, saving its action for the third act. This, of course, is part of its brilliance. Caesar’s life is documented by Wyatt in documentary type style before unleashing the uprising that is teased throughout. Indeed, the title for the film was originally Caesar before Twentieth Century Fox changed it to be a recognisable instalment in the well known franchise. (The less said about Tim Burton’s remake the better).

Serkis is terrific as Caesar.
I cannot praise Serkis’ striking ability to bring an emotional, three dimensional depth to a character that is visually made up of CGI, enough. Serkis’ genius resides in his eyes. In essence, they betray his character’s emotion when compared to the misleading façade that Caesar attempts to demonstrate to his human counterparts. His confusion at his mistreatment, his yearning for the safe haven he has learned to call home, his thought process and hatred of his enemies is all portrayed through his eyes. It is an incredible performance, and once again I shall reiterate the need for motion capture to be recognised at some of the more prestigious award ceremonies. You only need to catch a glimpse of the trailer to see what I mean. Human antics are present within Caesar; interesting questions about the bonds between the animal and the human and the boundaries between them are posed whilst the ethics, the moral philosophy and the wrongs of animal testing are also hinted at. It is, however, only a slight hint. Wyatt stops short of plaguing us with the political messages that he could easily promote in a film like this.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a drama and not, I would argue, the action film that the premise implies. The tension builds, at times, to unbearable levels and the turning point, the game changer of the film, where Caesar embraces his Spartacus-esque position as the rebellion’s leader is a fantastic, shocking, gritty and raw moment. “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” Tom Felton’s character screams at Caesar as the tables turn and the animals rise to dominance. “No!” Caesar shouts back, the first words spoken by the ape. This is drama at its best, executed perfectly and a nostalgic look back at the quote made famous by Charlton Heston in the original film. (I'm pretty sure the audience gasped here, such is the intensity). Many viewers looking for cheap thrills may prefer less time spent on Caesar’s hardships and more time dedicated to the action, most prominently the stunning final battle that takes place on the Golden Gate Bridge. Quite rightly, however, this is not the case.

James Franco puts in a disappointing performance.
The human cast is what prevents me from giving this film a perfect five stars. Franco has little to do in the final hour. We catch quick glimpses of him running around looking for his former chimp friend but his performance is disappointing, especially after his turn in Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours. Freida Pinto, last seen in Slumdog Millionaire (another Boyle film) is dull at best and brings nothing new to the table while Brian Cox just looks bewildered for the majority of his screen time. Tom Felton has a little too much Draco Malfoy in him for his performance to be taken seriously but in all honesty, it is hard to overshadow Serkis. Indeed, the 'ape only' scenes are some of the best that the film has to offer. John Lithgow, however, is heart breaking in his portrayal of a father afflicted with Alzheimer’s. Wyatt handles the subject tastefully and with sincerity. It is interesting that he includes the degradation of the human mind against the evolution of the ape’s intelligence. Symbolic? Yes. Gratuitous? No. Apes, at its core, deals with a son trying to save his father. It revolves around one man who attempts to achieve the impossible whilst trying to deal with the repercussions of his hubristic nature.

I hoped for a shot of a post uprising world yet Wyatt does not humour us with such events. This is only the rise of the apes and not the complete take over. One of the last images of man and ape standing side by side is an iconic one, and leaves the viewer to image what will happen next. Yes, the original films tell us what will occur in the far future, yet I cannot help but think that there is a missing chapter in between this prequel and the first film of the classic saga that will link all of the chapters in a definitive way. If there isn’t, it’s one hell of a jump, even with the scene that plays over the end credits, of which I shall not spoil.
  
Many have raved about this film. Some of the praise I find a little excessive. This isn’t a classic but along with Super 8, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of the better summer blockbusters to hit our screens this year. Terrifying, touching, emotional and raw, Wyatt’s film is essential viewing, if only to see how it pays homage to the original. I enjoyed it and I believe Fox will turn this into their next summer franchise. Expect sequels.

My Rating: * * * *