Mute

Noir Tender

Mute
2018 UK/Germany
Directed by Duncan Jones
Curzon Soho Screening 24/2/18

Duncan Jones is another one of those directors I've not really been sure of over the years. Kinda liked Moon (reviewed here), kinda didn't like Source Code (reviewed here) all that much and I didn't bother with Warcraft because I've never played the World of Warcraft game on which it's based (although I've heard it's a pretty good movie). I kinda got interested in Mute when I saw the director begin tweeting about it a while back but it's a film I nearly didn't get to see.

Why? One word... Netflix.

I'm not opposed to subscription channels as a whole. They have to make their money and I know Jones talks very highly of them in terms of getting the funding together to make this movie, which has been gestating for a very long time, from what I understand. So good for Netflix on that score. What I do object to is making these things exclusive to a channel as pretty much the only commercial option to both a main stream theatrical release and a physical media release. What that means is that people like myself who either can't justify the expense of subscribing or won't subscribe due to not wanting to what amounts to 'borrowing' a film from someone (via streaming, when it's actually deemed available, that is) as opposed to actually owning your own copy which you can put on your player anytime you want.

Furthermore, it's both a blow against the art of film and also something which is going lose money which the backers could have made back on a physical release.

To explain, films like this deserve to be seen on a cinema screen (especially a film like Mute... I'll get to it in a minute, I promise). They are made to be experienced on a big screen and you lack a little something if you've only watched it on your 'so smart' TV, iPad, computer or mobile phone. This is not what cinema is about. Also, the availability of cinemas in urban centres is a lot more accessible than having to sign up for a channel... especially if you only get to watch TV say, once a month if you're lucky.

As far as the people involved losing money? Well, as I said, not everybody is able to, or wants to, access Netflix. Which means the distribution of films like this are driven underground. I've already been offered a free copy of the movie on disc and at least one stranger on my daily bus ride to and from work just this week has told me about various 'free' streaming channels where I can watch all the newest movies without ever paying a penny. And it's not like I was even asking. So, yeah, I strongly believe Netflix should rethink their "exclusive to" business model because, you know, if people really want to see it without Netflix... I suspect they'll find a way.

Anyway... onto the movie because I got lucky on this one and spotted that the Curzon chain of cinemas in the UK have organised 'one a day' screenings of the film and I managed to get myself to one of these. Of course, the irony here is that the ticket cost me much more than the price of a month's subscription to Netflix but, having seen how visually rich and striking this one is, I'm kinda really glad I got to see it at the natural environment for the art of film... the cinema.

Out of the, admittedly small, amount of this director's films I've seen to date, I think Mute is my favourite.

The film starts as strongly as it continues with the main protagonist Leo as a boy where we see just why he is, as the title of the movie says, mute. We also see that the quaker family he was born into does nothing concrete to stop this condition from remaining and that's really all we need to know about this background so the rest of the movie, set many years later, shows Alexander Skarsgård  playing Leo, who works as a barman in a night club with his girlfriend Naadirah, played by Seyneb Saleh.

The story is set in the future and it seems to be around the same time that Jones' first feature, Moon was set. I know this because Sam Rockwell reprises his role as both Sam Bell and his clones in a cameo (basically making this movie MOON 2, in all but name). It would be true to say this futuristic environment in which this old 1940s style noir plot plays out is an extremely well crafted future version of Berlin. It would also be true to say that, with its occasional flying cars, overpopulated cityscapes and neon candy lighting, the film pays more than a little homage to Ridley Scott’s early masterpiece Blade Runner (reviewed by me here). In fact, it looks so much like it that it’s way much more true to the look and feel of that movie than the official sequel which was released last year. Mute truly captures the ‘designer gritty’ spectacle that Blade Runner 2049 (reviewed here) was lacking, as far as I’m concerned.

The film has a wonderful set up which gives you a glimps into the romance between the two main characters before going into a somewhat clichéd but no less effective film noir style mystery... as Naadirah goes missing and Leo has to try and discover what’s been going on in her life for this to happen and try to find her. It’s a simple set up and it follows a clear path towards an end goal while showcasing a credible world of future wonders and sleazy corruption.

The actors are razor sharp too.

This is one of Alexander Skarsgård’s greatest performances, if not his best, as he uses his facial expressions and body language to portray what’s going on in the head of the main protagonist. Seyneb Saleh is wonderful but, sadly, not in the film as much as I would have liked. Then you have Ant-Man himself, Paul Rudd, playing a kind of gangster’s doctor called Cactus Bill with his fellow surgeon Duck, played by Justin Theroux. Rudd is fantastic in this and the back and forth between him and Theroux, when they’re performing surgery or, in one case, a surgically inspired interrogation, is a deliberate and continued reference, both in look and dialogue delivery, to Trapper John and Hawkeye Pierce in the original Robert Altman movie version of MASH. It seems strange to have this here but it really works well, I have to say.

The film also has wonderful music from Clint Mansell, who scored Moon for Jones. Again, like the film itself, this wonderful score could almost be a sequel to the score for Blade Runner, with a little bit of Moon thrown in for good measure at some points. I really liked this and would buy it in a heartbeat if they would just give it a CD release. It seems odd that a masterwork of a score like this (and the same composer's score for the live action Ghost In The Shell, reviewed here) has not been given a proper soundtrack release. This needs to happen soon people. It’s a crime against filmanity... as is Netflix’s decision to hold this one back from a proper cinema release but... let’s not go there again.

The film seems to have polarised audiences with a lot of critics saying that the story keeps going off in different directions and tangents. That wasn’t my experience of it at all, I have to say. If anything the plot line was too simplistic, in a way... but the story line was always in plain sight and, although we kept cutting between two of the main character’s adventures (as we do in numerous films), it seemed pretty clear what was happening and its relevance to the ongoing story. I really think that if the newspaper critics couldn’t follow a storyline which, in all honesty, doesn’t have much of a complex tale to tell then... well... we really are in trouble, aren’t we?

My one slight grumble was that the film maybe went on a little too long past what I thought was its natural ending. I really didn’t think the last 15 or so minutes added much other than a slight shot at optimism for a couple of the characters. I really didn’t need to see anything more after Leo finds out just what happened to his girlfriend and I think a certain shot of him sitting under a tree would have been a better place for an ending to come.

It’s a minor grumble though and, for my part, I’d recommend Mute as both a great film and, most definitely, something which you should catch in its native habitat, i.e. - the cinema. If you like science fiction with a lot of heart, or 1940s film noirs for that matter, then Mute is for you. Dystopian societies this well realised are a bit of a rarity in cinema and this one is so well done that its definitely worth your time. Now keeping my eye on this director as a more serious artist to have on the radar. Looking forward to seeing what he’s up to in the future.

Source Code

Par for the Source

Source Code US/France 2011

Directed by Duncan Jones

Playing at cinemas now.

Aaaaw! I really didn’t want to write this review... but it’s holding me up so I guess I’d better get on with it.

I really liked Duncan Jones’ first movie Moon which, although it had what I saw as weak points on my first viewing, was interesting enough for me to repeat-view (and I’ll watch it again at some point too)... the stark and lonely setting of the piece really got to me I think. So I was kinda expecting a lot more quirky and possibly a touch of bleak thrown in for Jones’ follow up movie Source Code... but I have to say I was left a lot less impressed with this one than a lot of other people I know... Oh, and for the record... before I carry on writing this thing... Can people please stop telling me I watch too many movies? What kind of qualification do you want me to have here people? If a move is obvious and telegraphs itself then don’t blame me for being as familiar with the language of cinema as the next person. It’s not my fault I can sometimes see the endings coming a mile off... it’s the weakness of the films themselves!

Okay... having got that out of my system... lets move swiftly on. First of all let me tell you what Source Code, to my mind, is and isn’t based on some things I’ve heard said about the movie by various film critics...

What Source Code is, is a more than competently directed, nice to look at, turn your brain off movie which, unfortunately doesn’t really throw up any challenges plot wise. I’ve heard negatives that it’s very weak in the “science” area of this particular science-fiction and, yeah, the premise is, in a way I guess... well... “out there”! But, that being said, it’s not the job of science-fiction to be totally within the realms of science... unless you want to argue that this movie is a fantasy movie... in which case I’d be willing to listen. What it is the job of most science fiction to do is to sell the silliness of the concept in a way that will allow the audience to suspend its disbelief and escape into the picture as an immersive experience... and I have to say that Source Code definitely lives up to that one. It’s main problem though... is that it’s such an old plot device they’re using here that it’s certainly not hard to suspend your disbelief and, frankly, in the way it telegraphs its basic premise/twist in an early scene, the audience is way ahead of the main protagonist as to what’s really going on here... well ahead of him. Probably by about a quarter of an hour into the movie you’ll have figured everything out and the only thing left to do is watch it... but this is where the writer and the director win through a little on this one in terms of owning up and, in this way it’s similar to Moon in that... no wait. I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Let me tell you what Source Code isn’t. It isn’t intelligent science-fiction which is one of the main comments I’ve heard in its support. Maybe in terms of the main palette of movies on offer in today's increasingly dumbed down movie market it may seem that way to some people... and hopefully the people who are bandying about this kind of statement are all bright young things who haven’t become aware of the lack of originality in most modern movies yet. Certainly, though, I reckon if you were to have released this movie 50 years earlier it may well have been a big hit (undoubtedly it would have received outright critical claim and would probably have found an audience) but I don’t think it would have been much perceived as being particularly intelligent in any way. I’m not complaining, by the way. I just saw Battle: Los Angeles the other day and absolutely loved that... anyone claiming that particular noise-fest is in any way intelligent would get run out of town on a rail, wouldn’t they?

Now then... back to the twist, which I will try very hard not to spoil for you here if you haven’t already seen this film. About halfway through Moon, the director’s first movie, the twist was revealed so the rest of the story could play out from a different viewpoint. Which is fine and, on reflection, is probably the best option for that movie. Problem is, the audience are such that they are conditioned to expect the big twist revelation about a quarter of an hour before the end of the movie these days... so revealing that twist that early only puts the audience in a frame of mind where they’re still trying to figure out what the real twist is... and when something even more revelatory with bells on isn’t forthcoming, the audience is probably going to feel deflated and disappointed.

And what we have with Source Code is pretty much the same thing. Duncan Jones and the writer Ben Ripley obviously feel that their little twist in the basic set up is pretty much really obvious, which it is, and so they come clean with what’s really going on about half way through the movie so they can carry on exploring the emotional fallout and resolution of that story without being accused of overplaying their hand so much... which is absolutely a good call and probably the best thing they could have done with a storyline which, frankly, feels like it’s almost certainly been an old The Twilight Zone episode (and for the record, I love the old The Twilight Zone TV show) but, of course, the audience is still left wondering what the real twist is gonna be. Because that’s too obvious a plot set-up isn’t it?

Well yeah, it is and I’m surprised that movie producers are still greenlighting these old fifties sci-fi short story plots... but there’s been a lot of that kind of source material being used in US mainstream cinema in the last few years so this is just another example of that kind of movie. The good news is, though, that the direction is pretty cool, the performances are all pitch perfect and the music is great. I was expecting/hoping for another Clint Mansell score, especially since his work with Jones on his previous movie was so good, but this time the composing duties went to a guy called Chris Bacon, who I’d not heard of... but I have to say that it’s a really great score. Perhaps a little reminiscent of John Powell’s score for Paycheck at times but that’s certainly no bad thing. Will be interesting to see what this composer turns his hand to in the future. Good job.

That the movie is just a little more unchallenging than I’d been led to believe, is my only real gripe... and consequently I’d probably not bother watching this one again. However, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go and see it. It’s definitely worth a watch and certainly, this director needs your financial support so he can go on to greater and greater things. This guy is clearly an interesting creative figure and I suspect we’re going to get a few interesting masterpieces from him as his career progresses. Let’s see what happens.

High Moon

Moon 2009 US

Directed by Duncan Jones

Sony Pictures DVD Region 2

Big, scary spoiler warning. Not only does this review contain spoilers for Duncan Jones’ Moon but, within the first paragraph even, it contains spoilers for Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo. If you read this review without having seen Moon you will be doing yourself (and the director for that matter, I suspect) a great disservice. If you read this review without having seen Hitchcock’s Vertigo, then you should even more hang your head in shame for spoiling great movie moments ahead of you. In fact, not watching either of these movies constitutes a terrible crime against filmanity whether you read this review or not. Secondly... although this starts off giving the impression that it’s a negative review, it really isn’t. If you’re going to honour me by reading it, please read it to the end. So please consider yourself warned... I don’t do it often.

About three quarters of the way through Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, the character played by Kim Novak reveals to us, the audience, in a scribbled letter to a character to whom she never sends it, the secret of the movie... she is the original person who’s death was staged while she was assuming another identity to fool James Stewart into testifying that an unseen character committed suicide instead of being murdered. Over the years many people have argued over the fact as to whether this “reveal” happens way too early in the film and whether Hitchcock should have waited until much later to do this. Certainly the first time I watched Vertigo I thought it was way too early... on the other hand I had it pretty much sussed out anyway so perhaps it was the right thing to do? Certainly, over the years and after numerous screenings of Vertigo, I feel that actually Hitchcock made the right call on this one... it’s fascinating to watch James Stewart inadvertently torture Novak’s character because he doesn’t know the truth and to be “in on the joke” and understand Novak’s pain at this point in the narrative.

Okay, having said that much...

I took another look at Duncan Jones’ excellent movie Moon the other night on DVD. I remember watching this at the cinema when it came out and feeling just a tad disappointed... well, no, okay then... a lot disappointed on that very first viewing. Why? Well I could see as I was watching, right off the bat, that it was an amazing piece of movie-making worthy of any audiences attention but... and this really annoyed me at the time... I’d been lead to believe by the pre-publicity generated by the film that there was a big twist coming.

So I’m watching this film and about a third (?) of the way into the movie a second version of the lead star comes into existence and finds the damaged body of the previous version of him in a lunar vehicle smash-up. He brings him back to base for medical care and then you have two “Sams” in the story, both played by Norman Rockwell... so far so good. Very intriguing. This movie really has me hooked... but then they start talking about whether they’re clones of each other and I start thinking... “No. Way too obvious. Where’s the twist in that?” And so I figure the scriptwriter is trying to plant red herrings in my mind to make the real twist seem like a real punch in the gut when it comes. So I’m sitting in the cinema trying to figure out just what the real twist is... but then pretty soon after it becomes clear that clones really is the answer. These clones only have a three year lifespan - after the old one is incinerated and a new one is woken up. So okay, I think. There must be a different dimension to the story that I’m not getting yet. What’s going to happen? Are they trapped in hell? Is it really a time trap? What’s going on? And then the film kinda resolves itself... they are clones, one of them is dying and then one of them escapes the Moon to bring the truth of the “generic villanous company’s” nefarious employee-by-cloning work ethic back to earth. End of story. No twist and so I left the cinema a little underwhelmed that day... even though I knew I shouldn’t be... and here’s why.

Moon is a beautiful looking (and sounding) film. It’s really cleanly shot and has a kind of flowing pacing all of its own... sound overlaps into different scenes etc. to give the film an almost amorphous quality all of it’s own although not in terms of structure - the plotline is very linear. The style of it is almost like a modern 2001: A Space Odyssey... and I’m not making that comparison just because all of the action is spacebound. It just has that tidy, immaculate and sometimes slightly ponderous pacing which allows your brain to relax itself into the movie and build up a kind of uncluttered relationship with the central character(s).

And, of course, Sam Rockwell is brilliant. I knew that anyway, of course, from his brilliant star turn as the villain in the first Charlie’s Angels movie (yeah, okay, I loved both the Charlie’s Angels movies... so slap me) and his performance in this as he plays clones of the same person in different stages of their development is awesome. Even if he didn’t have little visual clues to help you keep track of each clone’s identity, you would have no problem telling the two clones apart. The acting is that good.

The feel you get from watching this unassuming masterpiece is the same kind of feeling you get from watching cool 70s genre classics like Dark Star and Silent Running... a relaxed and interesting sci-fi view of a world created by someone who really knows what they’re doing. It even has a reference to the first Alien movie as one of Sam’s plants is called Ridley.

Clint Mansell’s musical score is superb. Which, to be honest, is what I’d expect from the composer who gave us the landmark score to Requiem For A Dream and the Bonder than Bond score for the brave attempt that was Sahara. The Moon score keeps riffing on the same theme but it’s brilliant, filled with strange sounds including one little effect which is almost exactly the same sound you’d hear when Lee Majors did anything remotely bionic in The Six Million Dollar Man. The album is well worth a purchase for a chilled out evening with a glass of wine.

And guess what... this second viewing has made me realise that, like Hitchcock’s Vertigo before it, the clone-twist-reveal element is actually perfectly timed. It’s where it needs to be to let the story breathe and play out in it’s own time and it’s own way. I can tell that Moon is going to be one of those movies that I fire up every three or four years to rewatch. It’s a film you can relax with and which will put you in a reflective and meditative trance.

This director may well be one to watch. Let's hope we get some more films out from him soon so we can make a more rigorous judgement on a larger body of work. Not all movies work with some viewers the first time around. Some of them need to grow on you and often the fact that you don’t have to concentrate so hard on the storyline on subsequent viewings allows your appreciation of the piece to be reignited and you’ll often get a lot more out of it (Eraserhead was like that with me). This movie is going to become a constant redigitised-celluloid companion for years to come.

Take it from me... this DVD is worth taking a second trip to the Moon for.