Filmknitter

Breaking Dawn: Part 1 and Immortals

I wasn't sure whether to blog about this or not, which should give you a clue to my opinion of it. Breaking Dawn: Part 1, as you might expect, is an adaptation of the first half of Breaking Dawn; the final book in the Twilight series. Now, unfortunately this section of this book is terribly self-indulgent and I remember when I first read it thinking that it's a good job Stephenie Meyer had such a dedicated audience by that point otherwise the book may well have not been commissioned. The film, being a faithful adaptation, suffers from the same flaws. The plot is terribly melodramatic and cheesy, as well as slightly disturbing in parts (take note, the birth scene is no prettier on the silver-screen than it is in the book, and this is the PG-13 version!).

The other problem is that this film suffers the same affliction as the previous two; it is simply a paint-by-numbers glossy retelling of the book. Indie director Catherine Hardwicke did a tremendous job of the first film, sticking close to the story but also making it her own, and ensuring that the finished film retained the dream-like feel of the book. Sadly Hardwicke and Summit then parted company (one can only assume because they realised they were sitting on a cash-cow and decided to make the series more commercial) and instead went with popular mainstream (and male) directors who were more than happy to include product placement and generally tart the thing up a bit. Thus Bella, who looks pretty but realistically teenage in the first film, starts looking rather too coiffed in New Moon etc. She is supposed to be our everywoman, and is part of the reason the books are so popular - every female fan I speak to agrees that Bella is so easy to identify with because she's going through that awkward teenage phase that readers of any age will be familiar with. I digress; Breaking Dawn just looks too glossy, too perfect. It feels like a feature-length trailer for the book rather than an interesting retelling. I look forward to the second half, which gets on with a much more appealing storyline and the excitement of lots of new vampires to meet.

Immortals, directed by Tarsem Singh (previous films The Cell and The Fall), tells the Greek myth of Theseus. I'm not good on Greek mythology so I couldn't tell you if it's accurate but essentially Theseus is sent by the Gods to stop King Hyperion who is trying to find a powerful weapon which could destroy the whole of Greece. He's already captured a virgin oracle (Freida Pinto) and killed Theseus's mother so Theseus and a few freed slaves must battle minotaurs and more to stop Hyperion.

I loved Tarsem's previous film, The Fall, and I'm very excited about his next project: Snow White adaptation 'Mirror, Mirror' so I thought I'd give Immortals a try too. Firstly, I am delighted to confirm that it's far superior to this summer's other Gods vs. mortals story: Clash of the Titans. Immortals is closest to 300 in style but is marginally less outrageous. It's more like the epics of the 60s which I remember watching on daytime TV when I was revising for exams on study leave as a teenager. So, there's no real surprises here but the story is compelling enough and the cast do a very solid job. Henry Cavill as Theseus is cutting his action-hero teeth in preparation for his first outing as Superman next year, Luke Evans who appears to have appeared from nowhere this year is appropriately godlike as Zeus, and Mickey Rourke is in evilbastard mode as grizzled old battleaxe King Hyperion. It's all very OTT but it's incredibly stylish and the action scenes are done well, even if the non-CG bits of set and costumes occasionally look a little homemade (during Theseus's rousing speech to the troops one soldier's shield is visibly deteriorating as he enthusiastically bashes his plastic sword against it). As a Sunday night's entertainment it is more than adequate even if it doesn't quite live up to the high camp and imagination of The Fall.

The Help

Oh dear, I've seen three good films in the last few weeks and haven't had a spare second to blog about them. This is what comes of deciding to take an evening class, and start making various complicated garments, all in the run-up to Christmas. However, as I've been looking forward to The Help for so long and finally saw it last night I decided I must blog about it. It is a fairly faithful adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's best-selling novel set in 1960s Mississippi, in Jackson to be specific, where Medgar Evers was shot for suggesting that black people should have the same rights as white people. The plot follows two black maids in and around the period when Evers was shot, and a white girl who decides to tell their stories in a book which will expose the racist attitudes simmering below the surface of respectable Jackson society.

I adored Kathryn Stockett's book, to the point where I have ranted to various people about how this book should be set reading in schools and should supersede To Kill a Mockingbird as it carries the same messages but in (arguably) a much more accessible and enjoyable manner. I was excited to see how relatively inexperienced director and screenwriter Tate Taylor would adapt the rich and dense story. I was even more excited when the cast was revealed: Viola Davis as Aibileen, Bryce Dallas Howard as Hilly, Alison Janney as Mrs Phelan, and True Blood favourite Nelsan Ellis in a minor role. I suspect my expectations were too high as the film didn't quite meet them, but still I thoroughly enjoyed it and my only complaint is that it doesn't match the achievement of the book in expressing the extreme inbalance between the rights of black and white people in such a powerful way despite never explicitly showing the civil rights protests, the violence, or Evers' shooting (we hear about it on TV only, which Mrs Phelan soon turns off). The fim feels a little lighter, a little fluffier, but I can't put my finger on why exactly. Of course some sections of the book have to be chopped and changed, but the bulk of the maids' stories remain intact and it is only peripheral plot lines that are edited.

There is much to like about this film though; as I suspected the cast is brilliant. Howard nails the angelic exterior and toxic interior required for Hilly. Viola Davis is a perfectly lovable Aibileen and Octavia Spencer a hilariously out-spoken Minny. Emma Stone, who I adored in Easy A, wasn't quite the Skeeter I had in my head but makes her just as likable and funny as in the book. Allison Janney, as her mother, is brilliant and gets all the best lines, even if her cancer storyline is relegated to an occasional remark and a penchant for wigs. Cicely Tyson also deserves a mention as Skeeter's beloved maid Constantine, who appears only briefly but with an accent (cajun?) I could have listened to all day.

What the film does express even better than the book is how recent all of this was. Just by dint of actually visually showing us that this was in the swinging 60s; the gateway to the modern age, and yet the attitudes were no better than a century before. Seeing the cars, the clothes, the mod-cons, that I've seen a hundred times in old family photos, it's shocking to realise that when my parents were growing up black people in the American South were still regarded as second-class citizens, as a different species almost. It's powerful stuff but for anyone going to see the film who hasn't read the book I have to urge you to do both, as there is even more clout in the book, as well as more depth to the characters you'll love from the film.