Zero Emotion, Dark Morals, Thirty Minutes Of Action

Zero Dark Thirty

Dir: Katheryn Bigelow

Stars: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton

Commentary on the politics of Zero Dark Thirty prior to its release has been pretty much unavoidable. Liberal commentators have taken umbrage with the movie’s strongly pro-torture stance; whilst conservatives have alleged that Bigelow’s unprecedented access to classified information, and the timing of the film’s American release, make it pro-Obama propaganda. Having seen the film, it is unsurprising that its content proved to be so politically divisive. Although I agree that the portrayal of torture as a successful means to an end is abhorrent within the context of this movie, my overriding reaction to the film wasn’t one of outrage, but more one of boredom.

The film centres on CIA officer Mia (Chastain), whose entire career has revolved around the capture - dead or alive - of Osama Bin Laden. The opening act contains incredibly vile scenes of Maya and her colleague Dan (Clarke) subjecting a suspected terrorist to physical torture, waterboarding and sexual humiliation in order to gain information that he screams he is not privy to. The audience is never distanced from these images - and they are presented as a factually accurate representation of how the CIA works - yet they also establish an immediate contempt for the lead characters in any human being with a capacity for empathy. Kathryn Bigelow’s direction never seems to suggest whether these methods are necessary or effective; and the remainder of the movie exists outside of morality, character development, or any understanding of intrigue or entertainment.

Instead, the audience must sit through two hours of staff meetings and paperwork, punctuated by the odd explosion or culturally insensitive piece of dialogue (“Muslims don’t celebrate with cake”), before ultimately receiving the ‘pay-off’ of Bin Laden’s actual assassination. Of course by this point the accurately choreographed, though emotionally vacant, conclusion has no dramatic value as you’ve just sat through 157mins of dull and loathsome characters statically following invasive and untrustworthy leads in order to predictably kill another bunch of dull and loathsome characters. The entire narrative is as arduous, expensive and morally vacant as the actual hunt for Bin Laden – and provides the same sombre conclusion.

For me, Zero Dark Thirty was a completely forgettable cinematic experience. It’s a story that anyone who has been alive since 9/11 is familiar with, re-told in excruciating detail, before concluding in a distant and unrewarding news event that is played out with the minimum possible drama. Although the climactic raid sequence could have made for a moderately interesting TV reconstruction 20 months ago, the rest of the story has no business on the big screen.

So if you’re interested in reading forty-page reports on how the CIA spends American tax dollars, or need some well-shot footage for a “death to the West” propaganda film – then maybe Zero Dark Thirty is worth a watch. But if you’re interested in plot, character development, engagement, entertainment, thrills, drama, and a rewarding conclusion - then there are films better suited for you this awards season.

3 / 10

Very Civil, But No War

Lincoln

Dir: Steven Spielberg

Stars: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones

Set during the height of the American Civil War, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is a bio-epic that covers the final four months of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, in which he attempts to have the 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The movie explores the political decisions that Abraham Lincoln made in the pursuit of liberty, as well as addressing his personal struggles with his long-suffering wife and determined son.

Upon watching the film, Spielberg’s eye for detail is immediately apparent; which is perhaps unsurprising considering he spent the best part of twelve years researching the Abraham Lincoln in preparation for the film. The director therefore manages to effectively capture the backroom zeitgeist of Lincoln’s presidency, whilst also inspiring yet another powerhouse performance from the formidable Daniel Day-Lewis, who is clearly enjoying a colossal rôle in which he can totally immerse himself. The supporting cast also provide the sort of theatrical, dignified performances that one would expect in a grandiose film helmed by one of the most celebrated directors in movie history. However, the accuracy and intensity of the performances fail to reconcile the movie’s almost total lack of entertainment value.

Lincoln’s theatrical narrative is an arduous drama of missed opportunities. Outside of the short opening scenes in which battle-weary soldiers have an audience with The President, the majority of the film’s ‘action’ focuses on the paperwork being done by comfortable, well-dressed, white politicians. Understandably, the motivation behind the piece is clearly an adoration of Abraham Lincoln, and the great contribution he made to American history. Yet for a storyteller of Spielberg’s calibre, there is very little to entertain an audience who desire something more than backroom historical accuracy. We hear immaculately costumed men discuss bloody battles that the audience does not see. We hear about the misery and injustice of slavery without a single victim of the genocide being given adequate screen time. Even when the time arrives for the president’s famous demise in Ford’s theatre at the hands of John Wilkes Booth – the assassination is announced, but not shown on screen.

Considering that the director of Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List acquired a $65million budget to make this two and a half hour historical epic, the end product is a well-acted stage drama that doesn’t attempt to address the brutal or holocaustic events of the time period. In spite of Daniel Day-Lewis’ exceptional central performance, Lincoln is a struggle to enjoy if you are expecting anything more than a period political drama. Those interested in Lincoln’s presidency will love it, those wishing to be entertained at the cinema will not.

5 / 10

Once Upon A Time In The Antebellum South

Django Unchained

Dir: Quentin Tarantino

Stars: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio

Quentin Tarantino’s seventh film as a writer-director endured much criticism from the press before its release. Spike Lee publicly stated that he would not watch the film, as he viewed its content as disrespectful to the genocide of his ancestors, and also challenged the writer-director’s “infatuation” with the word ‘nigger’. Moreover, in the wake of the most recent American school shooting in Sandy Hook, the press’ predictable scrutiny of movie violence again reared its head – resulting in Tarantino refusing to answer questions on the matter in an awkward interview with Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murty. Today, Django Unchained is released in cinemas and, having just seen the film, I predict that after the opening weekend the voices of dissent will be in the overwhelming minority.

The movie sees Jamie Foxx star as the eponymous Django, a freed slave who becomes the protégé of German bounty hunter Dr. King Schulz (Waltz). Together, they scour the slavery-rich antebellum South killing wanted criminals for large amounts of money. After surviving a prosperous winter, the two assassins head to a Mississippi plantation known as “Candyland” to emancipate Django’s wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of the diabolical slave fighter and plantation owner, Calvin Candy (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his obedient house slave, Stephen (Samuel L Jackson).

Django Unchained is a violent spaghetti western that has significantly less of the long, inconsequential dialogue that is present in Tarantino’s earlier work, as well as marking a return to a linear, single-story narrative. Yet, even with a running time of 165 minutes, there is no point in which the script dithers. The strongly defined three acts explore the horrific brutality of slavery, the unjustified disrespect for human life, the tremendous value of freedom, and the unquenchable thirst for revenge. Although there is an incredible darkness underlying the entire piece, this ultimately only serves to fuel the satisfaction gained from Django’s roaring rampage of revenge.

This latest historical extension of the Tarantino universe is a welcome treat for fans of genre cinema, and the world he creates is littered with cinematic references. There’s a cameo appearance by the original Django, Franco Nero; a sub-plot involving the gruesome practice of slave fighting, as explored in Mandingo; a narrative that pays homage to exploitation favourites such as Day Of Anger and Boss Nigger; subtle nods to films as diverse as The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Gone With The Wind and A Clockwork Orange; plus a soundtrack full of old spaghetti western themes. However, despite the post-modern detachment, Django Unchained is probably the writer-director’s most emotionally engaging film.

This is in no small part due to the performances from the diverse ensemble cast, which are mostly exceptional. Christoph Waltz’s Dr. King Schulz is an incredibly confident and cultured mentor, akin to Lee Van Cleef in Death Rides A Horse. Conversely, Samuel L Jackson’s portrayal of Stephen is not only perhaps the most hateable black character in the history of American cinema, but also the finest work Jackson has done in a long time. A supporting cast featuring the likes of Jonah Hill, Walton Goggins and Don Johnson also help to keep the audience engaged throughout.

In spite of the out of context criticism that has preceded its release, Django Unchained is Tarantino back at his best. Although likely to be overlooked by the Academy, this stylised revenge tale’s aesthetic violence, effortless charm and rewardingly bloodthirsty conclusion make it my favourite film of the past year.

10 / 10

Struggles To Excite

The Sessions
Dir: Ben Lewin

Stars: John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, William H. Macy

The Sessions follows the true story of poet Mark O’Brien, a quadriplegic polio sufferer who spends most of his life confined in an iron lung. Raised as a Catholic (“I believe in a God with a sense of humour”), Mark visits a priest to discuss whether God will take into account his extreme circumstances, and allow him to seek professional help to lose his virginity at the age 36. During his therapy sessions with a free-spirited sex surrogate, Mark learns the social and emotional difficulty of attempting to respond to his sexually desires despite his overwhelming physical limitations.

Featuring a strong leading cast considering its modest $1m budget, writer-director Ben Lewin has managed to create a movie with the perfect atmosphere in which to tell Mark’s story. Light-hearted throughout, The Sessions manages to maturely address the issues faced by disabled love and sex, whilst also trying to find the humour in the protagonist’s anxiety and apprehension towards losing his virginity so late in life. John Hawkes, Helen Hunt and William H. Macy all provide consummate performances, and are good company during an easy watch.

However, this feel-good warmth is somewhat empty considering that the script is free of any real belly laughs, and is ultimately a little predictable. Most of the characters understand Mark’s plight, so it’s pretty much plain sailing to the finish. Whilst Mark’s exploration of his sexuality is hindered by several understandable difficulties, the audience is never led to believe that there will by any serious danger of the narrative steering from its clearly telegraphed course.

An interesting and mildly amusing film, The Sessions is simple Sunday afternoon fare that, while enjoyable, never fully grasps at the comedic or dramatic strings that its story could conceivably pull.

6 / 10