What’s Going On?

Unusual scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter creates a “Frankenstein’s Monster” type creature in Bella, bringing in Max as his assistant to help chronicle her development. At first, Bella knows only a handful of words and can barely walk but makes huge progress each and every day, becoming a fascinated and fascinating person.

In Front Of the Camera

Emma Stone is cast as Bella in what is surely one of the greatest performances in an already incredibly impressive career. Mark Ruffalo is having a fantastic time as all-round unpleasant cad Duncan Wedderburn who falls for Bella, getting her interest with the opportunity of exploring the world. The wild swings of mood and attitude of Wedderburn are a wonder to behold. Willem Defoe is brilliant, as one would expect, the doctor who has suffered so much, including from those who should have loved him, and brings new life into the world. Godwin constantly battles with his paternal feelings for Bella, chastising any emotional influence as unworthy of science. Finally the main cast is Max McCandles played by Ramy Youssef, perhaps the most normal person of the characters, who goes through the film appalled by Godwin, Wedderburn and more for their lack of morality. There is a great deal of high philosophical discussions on morality in this movie but McCandles is the most obviously kind.

Behind The Scenes

Yorgos Lanthimos has had a string of critical triumphs, The Favourite, The Lobster, The Killing Of A Sacred Deer and going back to his earlier, edgier work like Dogtooth. Lanthimos’ films have a reputation for being weird – and even The Favourite which could have been a more typical period drama-comedy is distinctly odd.

The film is based on a book by Alasdair Gray, a noted Scottish writer, with Tony McNamara credited as a writer of the screenplay. McNamara has worked with Lanthimos before on The Favourite and created the comedy-drama TV show The Great.

Does It Work?

Poor Things is a wonderful, beautiful, filthy, depressing, uplifting riot of a film. There are few films where the utterance of the line “I am going to punch that baby” are middling amongst its outrages. It is hard to imagine what more there is to ask from Emma Stone who in this film displays the joy of mere existence, the turmoil and contradictions of love – both romantic and familial, the grief of losing those close to you, of never knowing those who could have been close to you. Stone goes through experiences of food, sex, pain, and pleasure, discovering these things and understanding them.

Bella Baxter does not ask for or demand freedom but simply states it, she will do as she will, it is an inevitability that she will be free. Freedom is a strong feeling in so many characters, Godwin for so long protected Bella from the outside world and cannot argue against a person saying they want to leave and exert that right. Freedom for oneself and freedom from society are strong themes in the film, with “polite society” constantly being run down. Bella considers herself free to leave, to travel, to love, to have sex, to not have sex and her run-ins with people who feel differently are eventful to say the least.

The film looks beautiful with exquisite buildings and interiors and at times resembles what Wes Anderson would come up with if he got more into urban fantasy. There are not enough words to convey how amazing Bella’s outfits are, and the costumes of others are not terribly far behind. The world they exist in, with London and Lisbon etc is our world but with a bit more magic and colour in it.

It would be fair to say this film is not going to be for everyone. It is exceedingly weird, deals with any number of traumatic and difficult issues, features frequent graphic sex and as already mentioned Bella threatens to punch a baby. But for those who have enjoyed Lanthimos’ previous films or like weird cinema, this is a fabulous film. It is two hours of frantic joyful madness mixed with heartbreaking sadness.

Rating: (4.5 / 5)

Also Read: Review: The Favourite

The post Review: Poor Things appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Magneto

In film Magneto is introduced in 2000’s X-Men, convinced that humanity will never accept mutants and will turn against them and as such he advocates violent resistance. In X-Men he kidnaps a child to use her powers – which will cause the child’s death, in X-Men 2 he tries to kill every non-mutant on Earth. An unappealing character but as we learn throughout the films his past helps us see why he see’s things this way. He suffered through the Holocaust, his family killed and experimented upon because he was a mutant. Then in X-Men: First Class despite saving the world the humans decide to kill the mutants. It is understandable therefore that Magneto does think that governments will turn against those they see as different, that they will kill mutants because they are afraid of them.

The Joker

In The Dark Knight, the Joker relates stories of how he came by his scars (and by extension how he became the Joker), the first being when as a child he tried to defend his mother from his father, the second that he did it to himself to try and please his wife who had been scarred by gangsters. He is also about to tell a third story, presumably different again when Batman interrupts him. We never learn the truth and it’s entirely possible there is no tragic and sympathetic story but it plays with the idea that we expect villains to have these origins.

Vito and Michael Corleone

A film that is regularly mentioned as one of the best of all time contains a villain origins story – The Godfather Part II. The film is split in two – half detailing Michael’s continuing battles with other gangsters and the other half is the story of Vito Corleone going from an orphaned Sicilian immigrant to a Mafia boss. Vito suffered and lost just about everything, even his name, and almost accidentally gets involved in the world of crime. We see all the incremental steps that seem reasonable and understandable that lead to Vito discussing how he will have people attacked on the day of his daughter’s wedding and decapitating horses. That said, much of The Godfather is Michael’s story of how he turned from a nice guy war hero to a Mafia boss – the attempted murder of his father, the knowledge that the police were complicit, the murder of his wife, the murder of Sonny.

Caligula

The classic British tv drama I, Claudius tells the story of Rome’s first imperial family. The third emperor is the infamous Caligula, known to this day for cruelty, incompetence and insanity. As the show takes places over decades we see the child become the mad emperor. Caligula’s father dies in suspicious circumstances, possibly on the orders of his great uncle, Emperor Tiberius. Seeing Caligula’s family as a threat Tiberius has Caligula’s two brothers killed, exiles and then murders his mother. Caligula, still a child at this point, is then taken into the household of the Emperor and witness to the depraved lifestyle of Tiberius and worried that he could be murdered at any time. With Tiberius’s death, Caligula becomes emperor soon reveals his cruel and insane side. Given that his life has been one of constant tragedy, trauma, grief and fear is it any surprise that when given absolute power things do not go well? I should point out that in I, Claudius Caligula does get involved in the plot to murder his father but as he was around seven he surely is only a pawn in the schemes of others.

So, we have Magneto, who suffered through the worst humankind had to offer and learned that he would always be seen as the other, the Joker who may or may not have an awful tragic past,Vito Corleone who lost everything and wanted to help his people and Caligula who grew up in palaces while everyone close to him was murdered by the emperor who he was forced to live with. To understand the origins of fictional villains can help us understand the origins of real-life villains and that is not to excuse their crimes but to see how we could stop these crimes happening in the first place.

Now not all of the point of giving villains backstories is to better understand the human condition. It’s also because villains are often more fun and more interesting than heroes. 101 Dalmatians was released in 1961 and Cruella de Vil is the only name most people remember from that film. Darth Vader, Alan Rickman’s the Sheriff of Nottingham and Hannibal Lecter are arguably more interesting and memorable than the heroes of these films. And none of this is to say Cruella is good, I have not seen it, it could be an awful film that is guilty of excusing wickedness but the origin of a villain can be a brilliant and insightful story.

Also Read: The Greatest Horror Villain of Each Decade

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The Value of Villains and Their Origin Stories appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

The Favourite is a film set in the court of Queen Anne in the Eighteenth Century. Queen Anne was a real queen of England and most of the characters in the film are also based on real people. However, I don’t think the film pretends to be entirely historically accurate or even wants to be. The film focuses on the rivalry between two women at court who are trying to be Queen Anne’s “favourite”. At the beginning of the film, this position is unquestionably held by Sarah Churchill (Winston Churchill is a descendant of her) who not only dictates many matters at court but settles a lot of state business as well. This position is challenged by the newcomer, Abigail Hill, a young cousin of Sarah’s. Their feuding escalates throughout the film, having consequences not just for the court but for the whole nation.

Behind The Scenes

The film is based on a book by historian Ophelia Field. The book is a biography of Sarah Churchill and it seems that the film has only picked certain aspects for the film. The film directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, a director who is having a run of successful films (The Lobster, The Killing Of A Sacred Deer) and expectations for The Favourite were high.

In Front Of The Camera

The stars are of the film are a trio of brilliant actors: Olivia Colman (Queen Anne), Rachel Weisz (Sarah Churchill) and Emma Stone (Abigail Hill) and all of them are amazing. Colman portrays Anne as a weak ruler who is too easily swayed by those around her. She excesses in food and drink (Sarah often challenges Queen Anne on her diet), dotes on pet rabbits and can switch from praising a person to striking them in a moment. Of course, at this time the queen was still ruling the country, so her temperament had a huge effect on England.

Emma Stone gives a great performance as Abigail Hill, technically a member of the aristocracy who has fallen on hard times and is always on the lookout for ways to improve her position.

I would say it is Rachel Weisz who gives the best performance. Sarah Churchill is many things in this film and they are often contradictory; she is a loyal friend and a bully, a confidante and a blackmailer, a conscientious agent of government and a seller of influence and Weisz conveys this complex character perfectly. Weisz’s Sarah is a determined and forceful woman who will impose her will on politicians and even the Queen.

Does It Work?

The film is amazing – at times funny, at times touching but whatever is going on you are unable to look away. I’ve already stated that the three principle actors are all superb but this is just the start of how good it is. The film effectively creates an eccentric court life nearly completely cut off from reality. We catch glimpses of scullery maids and there is a brief moment spent in a brothel and that’s about all we see of ordinary people. Some of the politicians talk about the needs of the people but you get the feeling that’s only a convenient political weapon. Speaking of the court it is very helpful that the two political parties, the Tories and Whigs, each have their own distinctive style and so are easily recognised – with Nicholas Hoult looking especially ridiculous.

The rivalry between Sarah and Abigail is played out wonderfully. Sarah is a lifelong friend of the Queen, they have a history of decades of shared jokes, anecdotes and acts of friendship. Whereas Abigail perhaps brings something new and exciting. There is an interesting counterpoint between the two competing favourites. Sarah is not always pleasant to the queen, for example saying that she says she looks like a badger when going to meet a delegation from Russia. The Queen is upset and lets Sarah go in her place. Is Sarah being honest to an old friend to spare her embarrassment or is she simply manipulating her so she can exercise power? Again, Sarah does handle a lot of political matters; is this because she knows the Queen is ill-equipped to handle this and the country needs a leader or she wants power for herself? Certainly it seems the Queen is easily led, often taking the lead from whoever last spoke to her. Conversely, it is made clear that Abigail purely tells the Queen what she wants to hear as and only takes an interest in politics when it benefits herself. Abigail’s analogy that sending reinforcements to an army is like arriving late to a party is not based on strategy but purely on wanting the support of the Leader of the Opposition. What makes things even more complicated in this rivalry is that Sarah’s husband is the man commanding this army; no reinforcements could mean his death.

But I would hate to give the impression that Sarah is completely innocent in all of this. At the beginning to the film the Queen shows Sarah her new “present” – she’s going to build her a palace. While initially Sarah says it’s an extravagance the country cannot afford during wartime (something the Queen didn’t seem to quite understand) she does still get the palace. Also her honesty often overlaps with cruelty and she is shown to be every bit as vindictive and grasping as Abigail.

Aside from the rivalry for favourite the film also paints a vivid picture of English politics where a monarch who has no understanding of the issue has final say. A country where friends can exert influence that will make them rich at the country’s expense or change the course of war. It is shocking to think that for a long time this was how countries were ran.

In short this is a masterpiece of a film with three actors giving three of the best performances you’ll see all year.

Verdict: (4.5 / 5)

The post Review: The Favourite appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.