150W: Mighty Aphrodite

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Mighty Aphrodite (Dir. Woody Allen/1995)

There is a point in the Woody Allen filmography whereby his front-and-centre roles seem at odds with the story. 1995’s Mighty Aphrodite may be the moment he crosses the line. Interspersed with a Greek chorus, Mighty Aphrodite begins as sportswriter Lenny (Allen) becomes obsessed with finding the Mother of his genius, adopted child. Co-starring Helena Bonham-Carter as Lenny’s career-driven wife and Mira Sorvino (winning an Oscar for her role) as prostitute Linda, the aforementioned Mother, this should be amongst Woody’s best but it becomes a quiet horn compared to his orchestra of films. The symmetrical outcome of relationships does somehow ring a classical tune creating an inversed Greek tragedy of sorts. But Woody does seem out of place; jarring against the backdrop of younger actors that dominate the screen. His relationship with considerably-younger Linda combined with an adopted-child story seems strangely, unsettlingly poignant – but isn’t that why we love Woody?

Rating: 6/10

Toy Story 3D (John Lasseter, 1995/2009)

"Say there, Lizard and Stretchy Dog, let me show you something."

Introduction

14 years ago. You're kidding me. Year 9 pupils who are taking their GCSE in Art & Design who - may I add - are doing very well - were not even born when it was released! Madness. I remember watching it with my younger brother purely through luck. It was that £1-to-go-to-the-cinema Day in England in 1995 and everyone was going. My family of eight were all going and, obviously like every other 11 year old, we wanted to see Toy Story. We got to the cinema and it was completely sold out. All day. We were gutted. But, seconds later, two grown men came up to us and decided to change which film they were going to see and sold on their tickets for us - so Graham and I managed to go! It was rammed full and we felt so lucky. Funnily enough, a siilar thing happened the following year but, alas, we didn't see the film we wanted to see (can't remember what it was...) and we had to settle for ... The Chamber. Eugh.

Big-time on DVD when Toy Story 2 was released they had this sweet 'Toybox' boxset and, excited now at the age of 17, I took the boxset home, keen to see all the special features - having spent £40 on, effectively, two films and my Matsui DVD player wouldn't play it. It was one of those discs whereby the DVD player was too old to play it. Same thing happened with the second disc of Gladiator and Scream whereby you could watch the film, but you couldn't select the menu.

So, as you can see, I am big into the Story of the Toys and this 3D release made me regress back to childhood and enjoy the movie anew. It truly was a memorable experience - but not-so-much because Buzz could reach out of the screen and touch me.

What I reckon ...

There is definitely something interesting about watching this film as an adult - and, more importantly as a cine-literate teacher with a certain appreciation of social-situations that affect children. Watching Fishtank (not the best comparison...) recently about, effectively, a destroyed 14 year old girl and then watching Toy Story whereby the suburban child has friends, family and happiness strikes a chord to some extent. It is what it is, and clearly Toy Story is not commenting on the sadness of children - but celebrating their creativity. Then again, I always remember a presentation my good friend Tom made in Year 10 in a theology lesson about ratings and how Toy Story and Jurassic Park are both rated PG. Maybe that's because their are darker issues at hand - Sid, for one, is a problem child. He makes you think of the whole 'if you torture animals as a kid, you're destined to be a violent person'. Okay, that's not a 'saying' but you see the connection. When Woody and Buzz arrive back to Sid's house and Sid shouts at his sister, rather than snatching her doll (a mean act in and of itself), I felt it would not have been out of place for him to hit her. The idea of abuse to toys must stem from somewhere ... and I think if you were to profile 'Sid' you would have an abusive, violent child who has and abusive background and an unstable homelife - and clearly has an awful diet (Are Poptarts the best way to feed your children?). I'm starting this review off on a very dark note, but this was something which I was interested in: what are the issues in this film? is there any realism in this film? Rather than answer 'Yes - Sid hits his sister', the answer might simply be 'No'. End of. Food for thought though.

Another interesting thing about the characters, I noticed, is that they are not exactly 'good' characters. We have Woody - this jealous cowboy who attempts to knock Buzz down the side of a chest of drawers. Potato-head this spiteful fella' with a real envy for Woody's position and, when given the opportunity, a desire to exclude Woody from the group (I don't think the punishment fitted the crime myself... and, to be fair, it is Potato-head who RC annihilates in the final act). Slinky Dog clings onto Woody's every word - eventually forced to give up on him due to peer pressure (it is he who pulls the blinds on Woody as Woody is, effectively, going to be murdered in Sid's room). Buzz is the only one who is a genuinely nice guy - but he's a little arrogant and is completely delusional and naive. Nevertheless, it is a testament to the writers, the voices and the story that we are still gripped to this story. It also shows this role reversal in how Bo is clearly more dominant than Woody - it is she who asks Woody to watch the flock, and it is she who grabs him by the neck. Woody - the character we stick with from start to finish - is a weak character with envy and jealousy issues to boot. Hardly characters you want your kids to impersonate. As Andy (without realising their true character) actually does!

It might be the adult-attitudes of the characters that make this cross the boundary from kids-only to family-friendly. We know these types of people - the top-dog usurped by a new arrival (think David Brent in Series 2 of The Office when Neil arrives), the realisation of times changing - and having difficulty accepting change, etc. I was laughing so hard while I watched it too - laughed alot more than when I watched The Invention of Lying - little bits like Woody's "Tuesday night's plastic corrosion awareness meeting, was I think, a big success. We'd like to thank Mr. Spell for putting that on for us, thank you Mr. Spell..." and Buzz's alternative names for the toys (see above). A huge laugh with those aliens - "Nirvana is coming. The mystic portal awaits." before being mauled by that dog. Amazing.

But, to finish: the 3D stuff. Yeah, it looked great - but I'm not 'sold'. I wasn't reaching out for the screen or anything. I felt, as soon as I was into the film, I didn't really care. I'm sure its great for younger kids and a boy in Year 8 was telling me that he watched it with his Dad over the weekend too and it was 'sick' (thats good it pupils-speak) but I was just glad to see the film at the cinema. I did feel that when the toys were all lined up you felt a real prescence as they leant out of the screen -and when Woody and Buzz fly over the cars it is great, but I felt like because there was a foreground and a background, I focussed on the foreground moreso. So, I didn't appreciate the detail and scope of the background. I'm also sure that the neon colours in Sid's room were alot more impressive than I recall. But I am not going to run out and buy a new copy in 3D - as my current 'Toybox' version is good enough. I think Up will sell 3D moreso -the trailer that preceded Toy Story did look incredible. Nevertheless, I am excited about revisiting Toy Story 2 and then, in due course Toy Story 3 ... Good times.

Interesting facts I never knew. Don Davis assisted with Randy Newmans score - as in Don-composed-the-score-for-The-Matrix-Davis. Interesting though I see no link between the two soundtracks. Secondly, Joss Whedon assisted in the writing - alongside the Pixar team. This is prior to Buffy and two years prior to Alien Resurrection. Any link ... you decide ...

Heat (Michael Mann, 1995)

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner"

Introduction

This is a fascinating film - it seems to have a strange 'edge' to it. Apparently its a love or hate film - with some people praising its characterisation while others feel it is a long, drawn-out action film. I side with the former, although after the first watched I did come away a little disillusioned, while after a second watch, it truly is flawless. An amazing film that secures me in the knowledge that Michael Mann is a force to be reckoned with - while Righteous Kill was a real scar on the De Niro/Pacino combo that was originally made up of The Godfather Part II and Heat. As previously mentioned, Sarah and I embarked on an Al Pacino season, and due to my first watch, to some extent I put Sarah off from watching it. Eventually, I convinced her it was going to be a good watch (not 100% sure - it had been years since that first watch but a risk worth taking) and we sat down and put aside the three hours necessary to watch it.

What I reckon ...

Having watched 'Public Enemies' the previous week and then watching this shows how talented and impressive Michael Mann truly is. This is a film which, shot-by-shot, looks sharp and progresses without rushing. Its an action movie and yet does not adhere to common 'action-movie' cliches. We see the pressures and humanity in both the cat and the mouse, before the cat becomes the mouse and the mouse becomes the cat - the brilliant two-scene sequence as we see the LAPD after McCauley and then McCauley photographing the LAPD, as he works out who they are. It then finishes with focus on the two characters alone - following an amazing bank robbery sequence that must rank with the best bank robbery sequences of all-time.

De Niro is playing Neil McCauley - a criminal mastermind with no intention of making a single mistake. He never takes risks and is willing to walk away if the risk is too great. Pacino is Vincent Hanna is a homicide/narcotics lieutenant attempting to catch him. He is someone who, upon the first time we meet him - analysing a robbery McCauley organised - he misses nothing. He knows the angles they came from - and is fully aware of how perfect the hit went down. They are both obsessed with their jobs and both show a focus and discipline for their jobs.

The whole first watch is very different to the second watch - on a first watch you don't know where the story is going, and as we look at so many different characters you are not too sure which character you should invest your focus in. On a second watch, whereby you know the story and plot, you don't have to worry about 'following' anything - so you can just enjoy the viewing and notice the smaller and incredibly significant aspects to the story. For one, the issues presented in the first act - Waingro escaping, Van Zandt's double-cross - are not expected have a knock on effect on everything that precedes it. The one thing he has always anticipated and was prepared for - leave Edie in the car (in 30 seconds...) - has a more detrimental effect. Then again, maybe he couldn't escape after all. Hanna, without realising perhaps, was one-step ahead.

The women also have a fascinating role in the story. These all factor into the narrative - nothing is simple. Edie, Neil's love interest, we are teased into thinking she might 'change' him - but we realise in the final act that he lives by his rules (see the quote) and does so, sealing his fate. In a similar parallel, Hanna also confirms his lack of commitment to his partner Justine because he knows how much the job means to him. Interestingly enough, Neil tells Edie he'd stand by her - and doesn't - Hanna says he can't stand by Justine, but to some extent, I think we are led to believe that they can continue their relationship - but on Hanna's terms of putting the job first. Edie is not a blameless victim because she does decide to stand by her criminal partner when she finds out his true profession but she is left humiliated in the car alone.

I think it would be great to dwell on that perfect sequence in the coffee house between McCauley and Hanna. It establishes so much without making anything too obvious. Vincent stating his stance "I will put you down", while McCauley doesn't even flinch to state where he stands that if Hanna gets in his way, he "will not hesitate ... not for a second". Its all over-the-shoulder shots, subjecting us to the intense stare of McCauley and the pseudo-laid back approach by Hanna. We feel every line, and are aware of the importance of every line stated. For many months now I have been collected older issues of Sight and Sound that regularly turn up at Kentish Town Oxfam (50p a pop is worth every penny!) and in one issue dated March 1996, there is an analysis of this sequence as we see Michael Mann's script notes on the sequence. The article notes how both characters are aware of the nature of time as luck and that life is short. Mann notes that Hanna, as a hunter, darts his eyes around getting every scrap of information on McCauley while they are together. Fascinating insight details that I would recommend anyone interested in the sequence.

An interesting facet - that I think has no clear parallel with Hanna - is McCauley's friendship with Val Kilmers 'Chris'. McCauley's belief and trust in Chris, to some extent, is what destroys his perfect organisation. He stands by Chris, though Chris is in a position whereby he cannot walk away in 30 seconds. Chris has a family and, though difficult at times, they support him, while McCauley ultimately has nobody making McCauleys entire arc tragic - as he is the one 'taken down'. Though a double-force with Pacino and De Niro, it is De Niro's character that we initially follow from the start and - though Hanna has met his match in McCauley - it is McCauley who is taken out. It is his story ... with a lot of scope for characterization of everyone else.

Nick James, in his BFI Modern Classic on Heat shows clear comparisons to Michael Mann's earlier work - the use of blue in Manhunter is doubled up in Heat. The whole of LA is sinked into this pot of blue paint - and it looks perfect. McCauley lurks in the shadow like a predator. James further explains the depth of each character and how, due to the intensity and perfectly pitched nature of the film, Pacino holding De Niro's hand as a symbol of understanding between the two men during the finale is exceptionally powerful while on a base level it is a ridiculous thought - De Niro and Pacino holding hands.

Which is where I end this review/analysis. The two men are at the peak of their careers - they are at an age whereby these roles reflect their history and experience, while at the same time maximising the character depth, showing how great they are (not that Raging Bull and Scarface made us think they were bad actors). The cop role of Pacino in Sea of Love is so simple compared to Hanna - a cop who has a family and a job which he has to balance so precariously. This film is a masterpiece - epic, grandoise and not be missed.