Film has changed this decade. In fact, film has changed as an industry and an art form more in the last ten years than any decade prior. If the 1930s saw the 'talkies' take over, if the 1940s saw colour photography begin to take over, if the 1960s experimented with size and scale, if the 1970s removed clear cut heroes and villains in favour of morally ambiguous stories, if the 1980s paved the way for blockbusters and special effects, if the 1990s saw the emergence of mainstream independent films and CGI, and if the 2000s continued to experiment with technology during the birth of franchise dominating blockbusters, then the 2010s is all about progression.
To think that in 2010 DVDs were still doing well, streaming or online renting was not a popular thing, Blockbuster was going strong and everyone was crazy for 3D movies. Cut to 2019: it is immensely hard to find laptops with DVD slots (or DVD players for that matter), Netflix and Amazon Prime are the leading platforms for online streaming, the Oscars no longer have a host and representation is oh so important at the moment.
Politically, Hollywood has swung into the left-wing; with a focus on balancing pay, having a proportional set of Academy members and for its huge promotion of films like Black Panther, Get Out and Wonder Woman / Captain Marvel. Regardless of opinions of it, the shift has been seismic.
And when it comes to the big blockbusters, anyone who has access to a keyboard and a social media platform can become a vocal critic, waging war on those that liked or didn't like a film. Small minorities have allowed opinions to become facts, and even smaller minorities have besmirched the authenticity of their fandoms (Star Wars?), associating their groups with the sort of playground bullying that should be left in school.
On a more positive side of the change, technology has continued to impress, though it has been misused or overused. Motion-capture has become immaculate thanks to films like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, whilst de-ageing or recreating departed characters / actors is also a hot trend, such as in Captain Marvel and Rogue One respectively. Another trend gone wrong is the 'Avengers Effect'. After making $1.5 billion in 2012, Avengers Assemble announced to the other studios that shared movie universes can be immensely profitable. Warner Bros. tried playing catch up with the DC universe, which started promisingly and then derailed due to trying to set up far too much. There was also the failed Dark Universe franchise, that began with The Mummy and ended with The Mummy. The only promising one is Legendary's Monsters Universe, with two Godzilla films and a King Kong film under their belt and a wave of possibilities for future installments. The other hot trend that fizzled out was nostalgia porn: reminding audiences of what they loved as a kid and trying to replicate or honour that love. Jurassic World got there first, then The Force Awakens made $2 billion out of it and then the flood gates opened: everything suddenly needed its own film and small things needed explanations in the form of a TV show etc etc. Disney's all conquering success as allowed them to remake beloved animated classics into live action stories, which retain the strength of the stories but lose the charm. Franchise revival has been done correctly: Creed, Blade Runner 2049 and Mad Max: Fury Road all told new stories whilst honouring those that came before it expertly. These are the kind of sequels the world needs, yet we do not get.
Genre has a concept has had a brilliant decade. Previously, genre films (horror, action, superhero, fantasy) enjoy high box office receipts and can also garner critical praise, but they very rarely enjoy the same success come awards season as the more 'prestige' films: dramas, biopics, historicals... This has changed dramatically in the last few years. Jordan Peele's Get Out received a Best Picture nomination and secured an Original Screenplay win; Logan got a screenplay nomination, romantic fantasy The Shape of Water took home a Best Picture and Director Oscar, and Mad Max: Fury Road hoovered up six awards whilst being nominated for Director and Picture gongs. The changing of Academy voters has allowed younger generations in who have rightfully platformed these genre films not just as 'one of the best [action] films' but also as 'one of the best films, period.' It took a long time, but these larger than life films are finally getting the attention they deserve, a trend that will only improve as we enter the 2020s.
I have made a list of my favourite films of the decade; having chosen 25 as a reasonable number to showcase. Whilst a Top 10 would be symmetrical, it would encourage choosing one film per year, which would mean a bunch of better films would go without mention, especially when 2014 and 2017 yielded far greater films than 2011 and 2013 for instance. And whilst 25 might promote selecting a couple of the best from each year, it still didn't feel like all my favourites were being represented. Another issue is that I have seen but a fraction of the hundreds and hundreds of films that came out since 2010 (I was 10 then to be fair) so my list is barely reflective of all areas of cinema, hence why I am saying my favourite films, and not an objective 'great' list of the best films.
So here is my incredibly opinionated list:
25. Annihilation (2018)
24. Isle of Dogs (2018)
23. The Hateful Eight (2016)
22. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
21. Bone Tomahawk (2015)
20. First Man (2018)
19. Arrival (2016)
18. John Wick: Parabellum (2019)
17. Coco (2018)
16. Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
15. Inside Out (2015)
14. Dunkirk (2017)
13. Whiplash (2014)
12. The Nice Guys (2016)
11. Toy Story 3 (2010)
10. Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)
9. Joker (2019)
8. Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
7. War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
6. The Revenant (2016)
5. Inception (2010)
4. La La Land (2017)
3. Interstellar (2014)
2. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
What can we learn from this list? Well I am obviously very fond of strongly executed, mid to high budget productions that fuse the artistic with the entertainment. I was surprised that threepicks were westerns, with another film heavily featuring westerns (OUATI...H) and another that burrows heavily from the genre (WFTPOTA). It also might be surprising that a superhero film does not make the cut; Logan and The Dark Knight Rises came close. Of all the big blockbusters on that list
(a budget exceeding $100 million), the majority are originals, with only six coming from existing properties. Other takeaways are that I love Chris Nolan (3 films), Leo DiCaprio (3 films), Tom Hardy (4 films), Ryan Gosling (4 films) and Hans Zimmer (4 films). Science fiction accommodates seven choices and there are four animated choices. It is not the most diverse list. But then again, neither is the film industry.
Wednesday, 30 October 2019
Tuesday, 15 October 2019
JOKER (and film derivation)
Few films have stirred up the media and tapped into the zeitgeist as extremely as Todd Phillip's 2019 comic book film Joker. The box office performance, which has so far shown impressive legs with its very small percentage drops, is evidence that people are seeing this film just to be part of the conversation surrounding the violence and messages the film presents. One nagging question I have had is whether Joker is the result of a progression on from other superhero films, or whether it is a direct reaction to the current climate of interchangeable, big budget spectacles.
There have been a couple of notable blockbusters in recent years that have taken much inspiration from older classic films: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, with its casting of Robert Redford and a tense elevator scene, pays homage and takes inspiration from 1970s political thrillers like Three Days of the Condor (1975); 2017's Logan burrows heavily from 1953's Shane (a scene from the film is shown, and later quoted) and 1992's elegiac masterpiece Unforgiven; 2017's War for the Planet of the Apes takes heavy inspiration from a batch of classics: its story has elements of Apocalypse Now (1979), The Great Escape (1963, and both of which are punned in some on-screen graffiti), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957). These films in particular wore these inspirations on their sleeves whilst also telling a story that was its own thing.
Joker follows suit, riffing on two Martin Scorsese pictures (he was originally on-board as a producer): Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Robert De Niro stars in both, as an unhinged man driven to potentially political violence in one, and as a mentally unsound wannabe comedian who idolises an American talk show host in the second. Joker is the birth child of these two films, with Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck (aka the Joker) being the unhinged 'stand-up comic' whose dark path inevitably leads to violence, and De Niro is actually cast as the talk show host, paying homage to his The King of Comedy performance.
Phoenix makes for a magnetic Joker. Uncomfortable is the correct feeling in viewing many of his scenes, his sporadic laughter and chesty nicotine induced cough afterwards make for an interesting take on the iconic villain, whilst his eyes and smiles are terrifying. One scene early on sees the camera slowly zoom in on his face, the complexion changing bit by bit into an unsettling smile. It is more terrifying than anything Pennywise got up to recently. Yes, he is worthy of an Oscar nomination, and hopefully the selected scene that goes with the nomination is his first stand up performance, trying to desperately to suppress his laughter and tell the first joke. It is a riveting piece of acting.There are numerous other zoom ins which do an excellent job of isolating Fleck from everything else.
In fact, by and large the cinematography is fantastic. The use of lighting is wonderful, particularly on a subway train where the flickering lights allow antagonists to move seen and unseen, and also in the film's third act which inevitably sees the titular character on the talk show he once fantasised about being on.
There grim reality of the film, with its mucky exteriors juxtaposed to the extravaganza of the elites watching Modern Times in a deluxe cinema, makes everything hit so much harder. Previous incarnations of the Joker have seen the clown wipe out dozens, sometimes hundreds of people in one go. Violence in this film is sparing, but when it comes it is horrifying. There is something far more threatening with killing one person in a room with a pistol than with killing a hundred with gas. Because the violence Joker presents is unflinchingly real, never straying into the colourful possibilities of comic book action and staying firmly in modern America. It is violence that could happen and has happened.
It has been refreshing to see Al Pacino have a small role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and it is refreshing to see Robert De Niro also have fun in a solid if small role in Joker (before both actors make their proper returns next month in The Irishman). The supporting cast is pretty solid throughout, and the musical score is utterly murky, brooding with sinister energy. It is most effective.
Then there is the film's message. Joker is a troubling film; at times it feels like a call to arms against the wealthy politically elite. The newspaper headlines and riots feel all too real that the downtrodden and poor could very easily rise up. Whilst not setting out to be, this is the Taxi Driver of this generation, a film with the ability to brainwash those vulnerable to the film's ideas. I did feel concerned watching some scenes, but overall my take is that rather then calling for political and social justice by force, it is invoking a theory I believe that is called 'noblesse oblige' - it means that the wealthy and powerful in society have a duty to look after and help the poor and disenfranchised. The events of this film show two things: society does not cater or understand mental illness as well as it should, and because of this rejection it stirs up the darker side of the downtrodden, ensuring the hate the system that should be aiding them.
It does derive an awful lot from The King of Comedy, especially with the black girlfriend that may or may not be real, the living at home with his mum set up and the idolisation of a celebrity. Luckily it isn't a scene for scene retelling, and it has enough of its own energy and stance to be its own force to be reckoned with. And hey, if this movie encourages people to watch those two Scorsese films, then that's great.
An unsettling, powerfully made and visceral piece of cinema that promises a new wave of character study superhero films.
There have been a couple of notable blockbusters in recent years that have taken much inspiration from older classic films: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, with its casting of Robert Redford and a tense elevator scene, pays homage and takes inspiration from 1970s political thrillers like Three Days of the Condor (1975); 2017's Logan burrows heavily from 1953's Shane (a scene from the film is shown, and later quoted) and 1992's elegiac masterpiece Unforgiven; 2017's War for the Planet of the Apes takes heavy inspiration from a batch of classics: its story has elements of Apocalypse Now (1979), The Great Escape (1963, and both of which are punned in some on-screen graffiti), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957). These films in particular wore these inspirations on their sleeves whilst also telling a story that was its own thing.
Joker follows suit, riffing on two Martin Scorsese pictures (he was originally on-board as a producer): Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Robert De Niro stars in both, as an unhinged man driven to potentially political violence in one, and as a mentally unsound wannabe comedian who idolises an American talk show host in the second. Joker is the birth child of these two films, with Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck (aka the Joker) being the unhinged 'stand-up comic' whose dark path inevitably leads to violence, and De Niro is actually cast as the talk show host, paying homage to his The King of Comedy performance.
Phoenix makes for a magnetic Joker. Uncomfortable is the correct feeling in viewing many of his scenes, his sporadic laughter and chesty nicotine induced cough afterwards make for an interesting take on the iconic villain, whilst his eyes and smiles are terrifying. One scene early on sees the camera slowly zoom in on his face, the complexion changing bit by bit into an unsettling smile. It is more terrifying than anything Pennywise got up to recently. Yes, he is worthy of an Oscar nomination, and hopefully the selected scene that goes with the nomination is his first stand up performance, trying to desperately to suppress his laughter and tell the first joke. It is a riveting piece of acting.There are numerous other zoom ins which do an excellent job of isolating Fleck from everything else.
In fact, by and large the cinematography is fantastic. The use of lighting is wonderful, particularly on a subway train where the flickering lights allow antagonists to move seen and unseen, and also in the film's third act which inevitably sees the titular character on the talk show he once fantasised about being on.
There grim reality of the film, with its mucky exteriors juxtaposed to the extravaganza of the elites watching Modern Times in a deluxe cinema, makes everything hit so much harder. Previous incarnations of the Joker have seen the clown wipe out dozens, sometimes hundreds of people in one go. Violence in this film is sparing, but when it comes it is horrifying. There is something far more threatening with killing one person in a room with a pistol than with killing a hundred with gas. Because the violence Joker presents is unflinchingly real, never straying into the colourful possibilities of comic book action and staying firmly in modern America. It is violence that could happen and has happened.
It has been refreshing to see Al Pacino have a small role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and it is refreshing to see Robert De Niro also have fun in a solid if small role in Joker (before both actors make their proper returns next month in The Irishman). The supporting cast is pretty solid throughout, and the musical score is utterly murky, brooding with sinister energy. It is most effective.
Then there is the film's message. Joker is a troubling film; at times it feels like a call to arms against the wealthy politically elite. The newspaper headlines and riots feel all too real that the downtrodden and poor could very easily rise up. Whilst not setting out to be, this is the Taxi Driver of this generation, a film with the ability to brainwash those vulnerable to the film's ideas. I did feel concerned watching some scenes, but overall my take is that rather then calling for political and social justice by force, it is invoking a theory I believe that is called 'noblesse oblige' - it means that the wealthy and powerful in society have a duty to look after and help the poor and disenfranchised. The events of this film show two things: society does not cater or understand mental illness as well as it should, and because of this rejection it stirs up the darker side of the downtrodden, ensuring the hate the system that should be aiding them.
It does derive an awful lot from The King of Comedy, especially with the black girlfriend that may or may not be real, the living at home with his mum set up and the idolisation of a celebrity. Luckily it isn't a scene for scene retelling, and it has enough of its own energy and stance to be its own force to be reckoned with. And hey, if this movie encourages people to watch those two Scorsese films, then that's great.
An unsettling, powerfully made and visceral piece of cinema that promises a new wave of character study superhero films.
Thursday, 10 October 2019
Movie Trilogies (a breakdown of the best, and how they operate)
A trilogy is a set of three films. Easy. But in choosing some of the strongest cinema has to offer, it is clear that they can operate on different levels. I wrote down all the movie trilogies I could think of and then whittled it down to ten.
The general criteria is finding a film franchise that consists of three features that follow on from the other. This threw up a few notes: some consider the Indiana Jones films (1981-1989) its own trilogy, with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sufficiently set apart narratively and stylistically as to not be included. It is a worthy argument, and I would have been tempted to include those three adventure films, except for that little bit of trivia that the second installment, Temple of Doom, is actually a prequel and set before the first film. This therefore excludes the saga from being listed.
This next point might be even harder to swallow. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films have also been excluded. This is due to both productions being written and filmed at the same time; they operate better as one large film then as three 'separate but connected' stories. With these movies, the ending is in clear sight as soon as the first film starts production, making them unusual entries in a trilogy list. With the other titles I have selected, the end goal is never set up in the first film, and it will become apparent that most of the first installments in each trilogy also operate perfectly as stand-alones. If I did include the Middle-earth films, then LOTR would be my top pick, and, seeing as I am actually very fond of The Hobbit, that would also be high up.
Finally, the ten films are split into eight and two, owing to a different style of trilogy. the eight represent narrative continuations whilst the two are more stylistically connected. This is also not a ranking of 'Top 10 Movie Trilogies of All Time', rather than a list of note worthy franchises that are great examples of telling stories inside one larger story.
The Back to the Future Trilogy (1985, 1989, 1990)
The Back to the Future films are broken down into parts, with parts 2-3 being notable for being back-to-back productions made a couple years after the first dazzling one. Back to the Future (1985) is a true 80s classic, embodying the energy and wit of the decade and being as close to perfect a blockbuster as possible. Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd are Marty McFly and Doc Emmet Brown respectively, whizzing around in the iconic DeLorean time machine. What makes the trilogy great is its interwoven stories that means events from the first film become the background and a threat in the second film for instance. It is the kind of smooth and smart storytelling you could not have in a stand alone. If the first film takes us back to 1955, then the second one takes us the future in 2015, before taking us to an alternate 1985, leaving the third film to go back to a different era entirely: 1885, and the Old West. This allows each film its own freshness and unique style, before bringing everything together in a neat bow.
The Before... Trilogy (1995, 2004, 2013)
By far the lowest budgeted pick on the list, Richard Linklater's indie trilogy consists of Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight, with the films very casually telling the story of Ethan Hawke's American Jesse Wallace and Julie Delpy's French Celine, who meet for an evening and fall in love, agreeing to meet six months later. The film's take place nine years after the last, as do the release dates. Very thin on plot, each film is essentially a collection of tracking shots of the two characters discussing the world, philosophy, politics, family and everything in between. Before Sunrise could have been a stand alone, leaving the viewer to decide what happens next, and Before Sunset equally could have left things there with a little more ambiguity. Before Midnight is a little more indulgent, showing us what we want to see and raising difficult questions. It is not necessarily a satisfying closure, but the evolution of the story (first night in Vienna, second time in the day in Paris, third time on holiday in Greece) and the 'fill in the gaps' conversations the characters have to catch up on what the other has been doing allows a very wholesome relationship to blossom on screen.
The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005, 2008, 2012)
The films that introduced director Christopher Nolan as Hollywood's premier style and substance and scale director, this trilogy is notable for its gritty, realistic feel for a superhero film, done so in such a way as to pretty much transcend the superhero genre. Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne / Batman and Michael Caine is Alfred, with a Hans Zimmer score, fantastic practical effects and narratives with real weight all amalgamating into some of the most beloved films of the 21st century. There is a crowd who felt dissatisfied with the finale, The Dark Knight Rises, but I am someone who doesn't look at that film in comparison to the almighty The Dark Knight, instead viewing it as a continuation of the story. Nolan and co. were originally going to leave it at The Dark Knight, but soon they worked out a satisfying way to the end the story. And thank god they did, because it would be bleak to end the series on Batman having to flee into social exile. Each film works because they bring a different theme of idea to the overall story: Batman Begins is a psychological thriller that gives Batman a mental test to overcome, with a focus on fear; The Dark Knight is an action crime film in the vein of Heat, with Batman being given a moral test as the Joker introduces chaos and choice to Gotham; and with The Dark Knight Rises Nolan opts for full blown historical epic and gives Batman a physical challenge in a story that focuses on revolution and legacy. With Rises we get a truly great send off as Batman is transformed from a man into an idea, a symbol for others to aspire towards. The variety in genre and theme across the films provides a very watchable and dense trilogy.
How to Train Your Dragon Trilogy (2010, 2014, 2019)
As a lover of the book series growing up, I can firmly say that these films are perfect examples of film having one over the books. These three films chronicle the story of Hiccup, a scrawny son of a Viking chief who, rather than hunt them, befriends a dragon called Toothless. In one of cinema's most beautiful friendships, the films follow the evolution of the Viking community with dragons, led by Hiccup and Toothless. The animation gets consistently stronger, and the musical score (particularly for the first film) was sorely snubbed of Oscar nominations. What makes the trilogy work is similar to the Before trilogy with the time jumps between each film. Hiccup goes from a pubescent teen to a man, allowing visual cues for the change between each film and how their home of Berk grows. The first film deals with having to exist and fight dragons, the second deals with living alongside them and the third concerns losing dragons and having to separate them. There are thrilling aerial sequences and some profoundly moving moments, with a warming epilogue for the ages. The Hiccup and Toothless relationship is the focus, but the growth between Hiccup and Astrid is also great long term planning. A fantastically told set of stories.
Kung fu Panda Trilogy (2008, 2011, 2016)
Another DreamWorks trilogy, Kung fu Panda concerns Po the Panda (Jack Black), a fat panda who grows to become a legendary master of kung fu. With an all star cast across all three films, this unlikely trilogy is the ultimate story about not judging and self-belief. The first film works great on its own; Po finishes the film as the Dragon Warrior and everything is full circle, with a few strands that could open doorways to a sequel (his parents / backstory for instance). That we get, with the surprisingly dark Kung fu Panda 2. This sequel deliberately sets up the third film in its ending, or rather sets up one aspect of it (Po's father). Much like The Dark Knight trilogy, each of these animated films offers a different villain based on what Po needs to overcome and grow from: in the fierce Tai Lun we get Po's physical challenge; a child raised with expectations vs a child raised with love, in Shen the peacock we get Po's emotional challenge as he grapples with his troubled past on the way to finding inner peace, and in Kai we get Po's spiritual challenge on his way to mastering chi. All three villains are effective at their role (and Tai Lun is easily the greatest antagonist in an animated film) and the individual themes in each film means by the end, Po is an all round master. Throw in exceptional fight choreography, Master Oogway quotes and awesome music and you have one of the most overlooked series of this generation.
Original Star Wars Trilogy (1977, 1980, 1983)
Inevitably being picked, this groundbreaking, universally worshiped set of movies may not be the perfect trilogy to analyse (there is a drop in quality with Return of the Jedi), but it does so much right. Star Wars would have worked alone: the bad guys introduced are all defeated, Luke is successful with using the Force and they all become heroes. There is set up such as wishing to see Luke become a true Jedi and the Leia romance, but by and large its a satisfying stand alone. Then Empire Strikes Back comes along, inspiring darker sequels forever. The world building is stretched, more characters are introduced and Luke's journey progresses. With its iconic cliffhanger ending, a third film was already on its way. Not of all the franchise was planned from the get to go; Leia as Luke's sister was introduced later on as a way of resolving the love triangle with no hard feelings. There isn't a thematic change between each film like Kung fu Panda or The Dark Knight, but the overall good vs evil or not giving up on those that are lost theme is constant throughout.
Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy (2003, 2006, 2007)
Hear me out on this one. I did state that the criteria had to be a film series with three entries, and whilst Star Wars has ten films, it is comprised of three trilogies. Pirates of the Caribbean is annoyingly made up of five films, but it should have stopped at three. The first three are too interconnected to not be considered a trilogy and it was filmed the same way as Back to the Future: one break out hit followed a few years later by a big back-to-back production to wrap it up in epic style. I love these films; the first is the go-to adventure film, the second one is so crazy and inventive it works, and the third brings the satisfying closure despite its congested narrative. This is trilogy for a bunch of reasons: Will and Elizabeth meet in the first film, meant to get married in the second and then have the bittersweet conclusion in the third; Jack Sparrow in introduced alone on a small boat, and last we see of him is alone in a small boat with the Black Pearl in Barbossa's hands; we also have the end of the British redcoat trading companies; the closure to Norrington's arc; the restoration of Bill Turner... there are no strings left by the third film. Pirates of the Caribbean is more escapism and entertainment than an impactful series with a message, which means the trilogy is more defined by the narrative then a goal or idea. Regardless, they are clever and inventive films, with some fabulous visual effects and music (you may have noticed Hans Zimmer has been involved with three of these trilogies).
Planet of the Apes Trilogy (2011, 2014, 2017)
As The Dark Knight trilogy was set to conclude, a new, gritty film franchise was beginning, one that would be so convincingly realistic through its tone and effects that its science-fiction narrative would be treated like a genuine story, in the same way Batman was. In Andy Serkis' ape leader Caesar is one of the greatest film characters of the decade, a biblical figure stunningly acted and rendered. The first film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, works on its own (common theme here eh) by closing on the liberated monkeys as a disease begins to spread. That could have been it, setting up how one ape led a revolution that took out human life. But along came Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, a very dark and poignant epic that upped the action and emotional stakes amidst a post-apocalyptic landscape. With an ending promising war, we got War for the Planet of the Apes, which took a smart approach of depicting a more psychological and inner war for Caesar than perhaps the all out conflict people expected. That isn't to say there is no action; the film is book-ended by two breathtaking battles, but this is more a war film in the vein of Apocalypse Now, The Bridge on the River Kwai and The Great Escape. The trilogy charts Caesar's journey from revolutionary to leader to a biblical hero who saved his people. Its a fusion of Moses and Jesus, and the film does't skimp on some of the images. Its a fascinating evolution, and the third film is an emotional sendoff that wraps the stories together, ending in hope.
As mentioned before, the final two are in their own little group for being a different take on a trilogy. The previous eight have all been connected through character and narrative; they are internally linked trilogies. I like to refer to these two trilogies as external ones; linked by things outside of the worlds they are set in. These are films connected by director, genre or style, and cannot be compared critically to the internal trilogies I have just listed.
The Man With No Name / Dollars Trilogy (1964, 1965, 1966)
These films introduced three vital parts of cinema: Clint Eastwood, director Sergio Leone, and the Spaghetti-western genre. With A Fistful of Dollars, the sub genre was invented; a bleak landscape where men, separated on the frontier from law, religion and women, are reduced to morally bankrupt rogues, bandits and bounty hunters. Here Eastwood's character pits two sides of a town against the other before ridding the area of bad guy Ramone and his gang. In For a Few Dollars More, the Man With No Name teams up with Lee Van Cleef's Colonel Mortimer to hunt a gang and claim the hefty bounty. In the almighty The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Eastwood is the 'Good', Van Cleef is the 'Bad' and Eli Wallach joins in as Tuco 'the Ugly'. The first film has one main character, the second film two main characters and the third has three, so there is a nice evolution, as well as the progressively longer film length. The films act as demonstrations of style, the extreme close ups juxtaposed to massive wide shots, with rapid fire editing, stillness, casual violence, black comedy and outstanding music all forming the Spaghetti-western genre. The Man With No Name seems to be the connective tissue between the films, thanks to that green poncho, but nothing is carried over to other films. And if anything, he should be the Man With Many Names, as Eastwood goes by Joe, Manko and Blondie across the three films. The duel roles for Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonte (antagonist in 1-2) also suggest these films do not necessarily inhabit the same world. But stylistically it is a trilogy, you can buy them in a Blu-ray set and Eastwood is the face of it, even if he is barely a character and the stories are in no ways follow ons.
Leone also directed a second 'trilogy', the Once Upon a Time... trilogy, which contains Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck, You Sucker / A Fistful of Dynamite / Once Upon a Time... in the Revolution and Once Upon a Time in America. The relationship between these films is even more minute than the Dollars movies; two are westerns and one is a multi-generational crime film. All that brings together is the director, Ennio Morricone's music and their titles if you are European.
The Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy (2004, 2007, 2013)
Edgar Wright's cult classic set of films, the Cornetto trilogy is similarly disconnected. Here is how they are linked: same director, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the two leads, a Cornetto ice cream cameo and being a comedy hybrid with another genre. Shaun of the Dead is a zombie rom-com, Hot Fuzz is a buddy cop action comedy and The World's End is a science-fiction alien invasion comedy. This playfulness with genre is the main focus of the trilogy's style and when viewed as three thirds, it is a fantastic deconstruction of genre and tropes inside those genres. All three movies are brilliant, endlessly quotable with some quality moments. Shaun of the Dead goes from hilarious to tense, Hot Fuzz goes from hilarious to gory to badass, The World's End goes from hilarious to political to quietly moving in its third act. It is a fantastic set of three original movies that riff on well known stories, and it makes for an unusually intriguing trilogy.
The general criteria is finding a film franchise that consists of three features that follow on from the other. This threw up a few notes: some consider the Indiana Jones films (1981-1989) its own trilogy, with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sufficiently set apart narratively and stylistically as to not be included. It is a worthy argument, and I would have been tempted to include those three adventure films, except for that little bit of trivia that the second installment, Temple of Doom, is actually a prequel and set before the first film. This therefore excludes the saga from being listed.
This next point might be even harder to swallow. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films have also been excluded. This is due to both productions being written and filmed at the same time; they operate better as one large film then as three 'separate but connected' stories. With these movies, the ending is in clear sight as soon as the first film starts production, making them unusual entries in a trilogy list. With the other titles I have selected, the end goal is never set up in the first film, and it will become apparent that most of the first installments in each trilogy also operate perfectly as stand-alones. If I did include the Middle-earth films, then LOTR would be my top pick, and, seeing as I am actually very fond of The Hobbit, that would also be high up.
Finally, the ten films are split into eight and two, owing to a different style of trilogy. the eight represent narrative continuations whilst the two are more stylistically connected. This is also not a ranking of 'Top 10 Movie Trilogies of All Time', rather than a list of note worthy franchises that are great examples of telling stories inside one larger story.
The Back to the Future Trilogy (1985, 1989, 1990)
The Back to the Future films are broken down into parts, with parts 2-3 being notable for being back-to-back productions made a couple years after the first dazzling one. Back to the Future (1985) is a true 80s classic, embodying the energy and wit of the decade and being as close to perfect a blockbuster as possible. Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd are Marty McFly and Doc Emmet Brown respectively, whizzing around in the iconic DeLorean time machine. What makes the trilogy great is its interwoven stories that means events from the first film become the background and a threat in the second film for instance. It is the kind of smooth and smart storytelling you could not have in a stand alone. If the first film takes us back to 1955, then the second one takes us the future in 2015, before taking us to an alternate 1985, leaving the third film to go back to a different era entirely: 1885, and the Old West. This allows each film its own freshness and unique style, before bringing everything together in a neat bow.
The Before... Trilogy (1995, 2004, 2013)
By far the lowest budgeted pick on the list, Richard Linklater's indie trilogy consists of Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight, with the films very casually telling the story of Ethan Hawke's American Jesse Wallace and Julie Delpy's French Celine, who meet for an evening and fall in love, agreeing to meet six months later. The film's take place nine years after the last, as do the release dates. Very thin on plot, each film is essentially a collection of tracking shots of the two characters discussing the world, philosophy, politics, family and everything in between. Before Sunrise could have been a stand alone, leaving the viewer to decide what happens next, and Before Sunset equally could have left things there with a little more ambiguity. Before Midnight is a little more indulgent, showing us what we want to see and raising difficult questions. It is not necessarily a satisfying closure, but the evolution of the story (first night in Vienna, second time in the day in Paris, third time on holiday in Greece) and the 'fill in the gaps' conversations the characters have to catch up on what the other has been doing allows a very wholesome relationship to blossom on screen.
The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005, 2008, 2012)
The films that introduced director Christopher Nolan as Hollywood's premier style and substance and scale director, this trilogy is notable for its gritty, realistic feel for a superhero film, done so in such a way as to pretty much transcend the superhero genre. Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne / Batman and Michael Caine is Alfred, with a Hans Zimmer score, fantastic practical effects and narratives with real weight all amalgamating into some of the most beloved films of the 21st century. There is a crowd who felt dissatisfied with the finale, The Dark Knight Rises, but I am someone who doesn't look at that film in comparison to the almighty The Dark Knight, instead viewing it as a continuation of the story. Nolan and co. were originally going to leave it at The Dark Knight, but soon they worked out a satisfying way to the end the story. And thank god they did, because it would be bleak to end the series on Batman having to flee into social exile. Each film works because they bring a different theme of idea to the overall story: Batman Begins is a psychological thriller that gives Batman a mental test to overcome, with a focus on fear; The Dark Knight is an action crime film in the vein of Heat, with Batman being given a moral test as the Joker introduces chaos and choice to Gotham; and with The Dark Knight Rises Nolan opts for full blown historical epic and gives Batman a physical challenge in a story that focuses on revolution and legacy. With Rises we get a truly great send off as Batman is transformed from a man into an idea, a symbol for others to aspire towards. The variety in genre and theme across the films provides a very watchable and dense trilogy.
How to Train Your Dragon Trilogy (2010, 2014, 2019)
As a lover of the book series growing up, I can firmly say that these films are perfect examples of film having one over the books. These three films chronicle the story of Hiccup, a scrawny son of a Viking chief who, rather than hunt them, befriends a dragon called Toothless. In one of cinema's most beautiful friendships, the films follow the evolution of the Viking community with dragons, led by Hiccup and Toothless. The animation gets consistently stronger, and the musical score (particularly for the first film) was sorely snubbed of Oscar nominations. What makes the trilogy work is similar to the Before trilogy with the time jumps between each film. Hiccup goes from a pubescent teen to a man, allowing visual cues for the change between each film and how their home of Berk grows. The first film deals with having to exist and fight dragons, the second deals with living alongside them and the third concerns losing dragons and having to separate them. There are thrilling aerial sequences and some profoundly moving moments, with a warming epilogue for the ages. The Hiccup and Toothless relationship is the focus, but the growth between Hiccup and Astrid is also great long term planning. A fantastically told set of stories.
Kung fu Panda Trilogy (2008, 2011, 2016)
Another DreamWorks trilogy, Kung fu Panda concerns Po the Panda (Jack Black), a fat panda who grows to become a legendary master of kung fu. With an all star cast across all three films, this unlikely trilogy is the ultimate story about not judging and self-belief. The first film works great on its own; Po finishes the film as the Dragon Warrior and everything is full circle, with a few strands that could open doorways to a sequel (his parents / backstory for instance). That we get, with the surprisingly dark Kung fu Panda 2. This sequel deliberately sets up the third film in its ending, or rather sets up one aspect of it (Po's father). Much like The Dark Knight trilogy, each of these animated films offers a different villain based on what Po needs to overcome and grow from: in the fierce Tai Lun we get Po's physical challenge; a child raised with expectations vs a child raised with love, in Shen the peacock we get Po's emotional challenge as he grapples with his troubled past on the way to finding inner peace, and in Kai we get Po's spiritual challenge on his way to mastering chi. All three villains are effective at their role (and Tai Lun is easily the greatest antagonist in an animated film) and the individual themes in each film means by the end, Po is an all round master. Throw in exceptional fight choreography, Master Oogway quotes and awesome music and you have one of the most overlooked series of this generation.
Original Star Wars Trilogy (1977, 1980, 1983)
Inevitably being picked, this groundbreaking, universally worshiped set of movies may not be the perfect trilogy to analyse (there is a drop in quality with Return of the Jedi), but it does so much right. Star Wars would have worked alone: the bad guys introduced are all defeated, Luke is successful with using the Force and they all become heroes. There is set up such as wishing to see Luke become a true Jedi and the Leia romance, but by and large its a satisfying stand alone. Then Empire Strikes Back comes along, inspiring darker sequels forever. The world building is stretched, more characters are introduced and Luke's journey progresses. With its iconic cliffhanger ending, a third film was already on its way. Not of all the franchise was planned from the get to go; Leia as Luke's sister was introduced later on as a way of resolving the love triangle with no hard feelings. There isn't a thematic change between each film like Kung fu Panda or The Dark Knight, but the overall good vs evil or not giving up on those that are lost theme is constant throughout.
Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy (2003, 2006, 2007)
Hear me out on this one. I did state that the criteria had to be a film series with three entries, and whilst Star Wars has ten films, it is comprised of three trilogies. Pirates of the Caribbean is annoyingly made up of five films, but it should have stopped at three. The first three are too interconnected to not be considered a trilogy and it was filmed the same way as Back to the Future: one break out hit followed a few years later by a big back-to-back production to wrap it up in epic style. I love these films; the first is the go-to adventure film, the second one is so crazy and inventive it works, and the third brings the satisfying closure despite its congested narrative. This is trilogy for a bunch of reasons: Will and Elizabeth meet in the first film, meant to get married in the second and then have the bittersweet conclusion in the third; Jack Sparrow in introduced alone on a small boat, and last we see of him is alone in a small boat with the Black Pearl in Barbossa's hands; we also have the end of the British redcoat trading companies; the closure to Norrington's arc; the restoration of Bill Turner... there are no strings left by the third film. Pirates of the Caribbean is more escapism and entertainment than an impactful series with a message, which means the trilogy is more defined by the narrative then a goal or idea. Regardless, they are clever and inventive films, with some fabulous visual effects and music (you may have noticed Hans Zimmer has been involved with three of these trilogies).
Planet of the Apes Trilogy (2011, 2014, 2017)
As The Dark Knight trilogy was set to conclude, a new, gritty film franchise was beginning, one that would be so convincingly realistic through its tone and effects that its science-fiction narrative would be treated like a genuine story, in the same way Batman was. In Andy Serkis' ape leader Caesar is one of the greatest film characters of the decade, a biblical figure stunningly acted and rendered. The first film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, works on its own (common theme here eh) by closing on the liberated monkeys as a disease begins to spread. That could have been it, setting up how one ape led a revolution that took out human life. But along came Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, a very dark and poignant epic that upped the action and emotional stakes amidst a post-apocalyptic landscape. With an ending promising war, we got War for the Planet of the Apes, which took a smart approach of depicting a more psychological and inner war for Caesar than perhaps the all out conflict people expected. That isn't to say there is no action; the film is book-ended by two breathtaking battles, but this is more a war film in the vein of Apocalypse Now, The Bridge on the River Kwai and The Great Escape. The trilogy charts Caesar's journey from revolutionary to leader to a biblical hero who saved his people. Its a fusion of Moses and Jesus, and the film does't skimp on some of the images. Its a fascinating evolution, and the third film is an emotional sendoff that wraps the stories together, ending in hope.
As mentioned before, the final two are in their own little group for being a different take on a trilogy. The previous eight have all been connected through character and narrative; they are internally linked trilogies. I like to refer to these two trilogies as external ones; linked by things outside of the worlds they are set in. These are films connected by director, genre or style, and cannot be compared critically to the internal trilogies I have just listed.
The Man With No Name / Dollars Trilogy (1964, 1965, 1966)
These films introduced three vital parts of cinema: Clint Eastwood, director Sergio Leone, and the Spaghetti-western genre. With A Fistful of Dollars, the sub genre was invented; a bleak landscape where men, separated on the frontier from law, religion and women, are reduced to morally bankrupt rogues, bandits and bounty hunters. Here Eastwood's character pits two sides of a town against the other before ridding the area of bad guy Ramone and his gang. In For a Few Dollars More, the Man With No Name teams up with Lee Van Cleef's Colonel Mortimer to hunt a gang and claim the hefty bounty. In the almighty The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Eastwood is the 'Good', Van Cleef is the 'Bad' and Eli Wallach joins in as Tuco 'the Ugly'. The first film has one main character, the second film two main characters and the third has three, so there is a nice evolution, as well as the progressively longer film length. The films act as demonstrations of style, the extreme close ups juxtaposed to massive wide shots, with rapid fire editing, stillness, casual violence, black comedy and outstanding music all forming the Spaghetti-western genre. The Man With No Name seems to be the connective tissue between the films, thanks to that green poncho, but nothing is carried over to other films. And if anything, he should be the Man With Many Names, as Eastwood goes by Joe, Manko and Blondie across the three films. The duel roles for Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonte (antagonist in 1-2) also suggest these films do not necessarily inhabit the same world. But stylistically it is a trilogy, you can buy them in a Blu-ray set and Eastwood is the face of it, even if he is barely a character and the stories are in no ways follow ons.
Leone also directed a second 'trilogy', the Once Upon a Time... trilogy, which contains Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck, You Sucker / A Fistful of Dynamite / Once Upon a Time... in the Revolution and Once Upon a Time in America. The relationship between these films is even more minute than the Dollars movies; two are westerns and one is a multi-generational crime film. All that brings together is the director, Ennio Morricone's music and their titles if you are European.
The Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy (2004, 2007, 2013)
Edgar Wright's cult classic set of films, the Cornetto trilogy is similarly disconnected. Here is how they are linked: same director, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the two leads, a Cornetto ice cream cameo and being a comedy hybrid with another genre. Shaun of the Dead is a zombie rom-com, Hot Fuzz is a buddy cop action comedy and The World's End is a science-fiction alien invasion comedy. This playfulness with genre is the main focus of the trilogy's style and when viewed as three thirds, it is a fantastic deconstruction of genre and tropes inside those genres. All three movies are brilliant, endlessly quotable with some quality moments. Shaun of the Dead goes from hilarious to tense, Hot Fuzz goes from hilarious to gory to badass, The World's End goes from hilarious to political to quietly moving in its third act. It is a fantastic set of three original movies that riff on well known stories, and it makes for an unusually intriguing trilogy.
Tuesday, 8 October 2019
Sergio Leone (and how to craft a phenomenal career from six films)
Consistency is key for filmmakers. Consistency means making a good film, so that you can get funding for your next project. Or, if you're Michael Bay, consistency is ensuring your film makes money, so that you can make more films and more money. Whilst there is an argument that Bay may well be one of Hollywood's most consistent directors, instead I want to focus on all genuine movie quality.
What directors always come through? Christopher Nolan is the immediate choice: ten movies, seven in the IMDb Top 250 (Following, Insomnia and Dunkirk do not make it, and the seven that do make it are all in the top 124), a huge following and the ability to turn original stories into big money makers. Martin Scorsese is another easy option; he has yet to make a 'bad' film and has shown considerable range from crime / gangster pictures to religious epics to thrillers. That being said, the quality of some of his films is of such high calibre that his lesser efforts, whilst still great, pale in comparison, losing that vital consistency. This is true for Spielberg, who has yet to blow me away this century. Quentin Tarantino has a vast following but anyone who made Pulp Fiction and also Deathproof should not be associated with the word consistency. David Fincher is pretty close were it not for Alien3 and I have yet to see all of Hitchcock and Kurosawa's works to comment on them.
But recently I watched a film, and that film was important because it meant I had completed the filmography of a director. The film was Duck, You Sucker though I intend to refer to it by the better name, A Fistful of Dynamite. The director: Mr one Sergio Leone. Completing Leone's filmography was by no means difficult; he only directed eight films and only six are readily available to find and watch.
Leone was an Italian film director, producer and writer. His parents were involved in the industry and Leone soon followed, picking up dream work experience on the sets of 1948's Bicycle Thieves, 1951's Quo Vadis and 1959's Ben-Hur. He took over as director during production of The Last Days of Pompeii in 1959 before making his full debut in 1961 with The Colossus of Rhodes. Whilst I will inevitably have to track this film down, for now I am continuing with my bittersweet view that I have seen all of Leone's 'Leone' movies (an Ennio Morricone score, American setting and his own perfected style). They are as follows:
A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), A Fistful of Dynamite (1971) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984).
The fact is, Leone could have made just three of those films and be considered an all time influential great. Not many can say that they created their own genre, but with A Fistful of Dollars Leone introduced the Spaghetti-western; a more unforgiving, violent type of frontier life dominated by anti-heroes and bandits. With his Dollars trilogy, Leone stripped America of law, women and religion and focused on the men it left behind. Critics were not used to this morally grey environment where lessons and messages are dropped in favour of technique, style and all round coolness. Yes Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name does dispense some satisfying justice, but more often than not it is in the service of money, rather than any sense of loyalty or duty. A Fistful of Dollars is perhaps the weakest of Leone's films. Whilst still a thing of beauty to behold, and is endlessly rewatchable, it suffers due to to its association with Kurosawa's samurai epic Yojimbo (1961) and how it is essentially a beat for beat remake. The security of going with an already well received story gives Leone a chance to focus on technique and style, and the intense close ups, massive wide shots, musical cues and black humour all start seeping into the screen.
With his new found genre and world, Leone continued with For a Few Dollars More. In this, Eastwood is joined by Lee Van Cleef as Mortimer, a fellow bounty hunter hoping to take down a gang. Their relationship allows a more dynamic narrative than just Eastwood alone like in AFOD. A fantastic western, FAFDM slips under the radar too often when it comes to all time greats.
The following year comes a film so famous you have heard it before you have seen it: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. One of my all time favourites, TGTBATU is near three hours of cinematic perfection. The second film gave us two characters, and this third film gives us three: Eastwood and Van Cleef return, but Eli Wallach steals the film as bandit Tuco. The three-way partnership and backstabbing creates an immeasurably fun atmosphere and Morricone's score has never been stronger. The final twenty minutes of this film is on another level entirety, it is Leone with no brakes, showing off every editing and camera trick he knows, all in the service of some serious tension. Quentin Tarantino was right when he named TGTBATU one of the best directed films of all time.
Three films over three years. One founded a genre, one confirmed it and one transcended it. And Leone was just getting warmed up. 1968 saw the release of Leone's magnum opus Once Upon a Time in the West. A masterpiece if ever there was one, this steers away from the European western and was filmed in Monument Valley, the stomping ground of Johns Ford and Wayne. A clear indication that Leone was offering something a bit more elegiac; a western that may have something to say as well as show. Indeed, OUATITW concerns a widowed lady who is caught between three men: one, a wronged bandit,; two, a vicious hired gun; and three, a mysterious drifter looking to settle a score. With Henry Fonda shockingly cast against type, and with Charles Bronson in the Eastwood role, Leone conducted a western so grand and precise many view it as the greatest ever made. When watching it it seems every action, blocking and framing has been carefully thought out. The dialogue sounds like poetry and every line carries weight. It is as close to perfect a piece of cinema has can be.
Again, Leone could have stopped there. He had deconstructed the western, then made a linear, classical western which fused European technique with Hollywood narrative. Out of those four, the last two are both considered in in the all time greatest films lists, with both featuring very highly on sites like IMDb.
In 1971 came A Fistful of Dynamite, sometimes seen as Duck, You Sucker, sometimes seen as Once Upon a Time in... the Revolution. Set in the Mexican revolution, Leone cast James Coburn as an Irish freedom fighter with Rod Steiger as a Mexican bandit who both get caught up the political action. Heroes still don't sit well with Leone: Steiger robs a train and rapes a women in the opening scene whist Coburn is shown to have gunned down three unarmed men. Yet the direction and characterisation is extremely good. The second act contains some of Leone's best work: the distant sounds of gunfire as Coburn observes dead bodies; a silent flashback when viewing a snitch; a motorbike rescue from firing squad. It is a severely underrated film and I eagerly anticipate my next viewing of it,
Leone was originally asked to direct The Godfather, but he rejected in favour of directing his own multi-generational gangster story, something that in 1984 would become his final work Once Upon a Time in America. A too often overlooked Robert DeNiro crime film, OUATIA alternated in its non linear narrative between children, men and elderly men and the effect greed and violence has on friendship. It is a mammoth film, clocking in well over three and a half hours long. This length frightened Warner Bros. who trimmed it down to a little shy of 140 minutes and turned it into a linear narrative. For a devastated Leone, this would be his last film. In time, the restored version has become more universal and, for those that have seen it, it is a truly great gangster movie.
Sergio Leone died in 1989 leaving behind seven films he fully directed. Five are westerns, a genre which Leone both admired and twisted, playing Tarantino with genre before Tarantino was born. It is hard to think of a cinematic landscape where Leone didn't exist: removing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly alone would cripple so many films post 1966. When it comes to understanding shots, juxtaposing images and editing, you have to look at the work this true auteur released. When it comes to consistency, Nolan comes close, but time will tell if his pictures will inspire and endure in the same legendary way Leone's have.
What directors always come through? Christopher Nolan is the immediate choice: ten movies, seven in the IMDb Top 250 (Following, Insomnia and Dunkirk do not make it, and the seven that do make it are all in the top 124), a huge following and the ability to turn original stories into big money makers. Martin Scorsese is another easy option; he has yet to make a 'bad' film and has shown considerable range from crime / gangster pictures to religious epics to thrillers. That being said, the quality of some of his films is of such high calibre that his lesser efforts, whilst still great, pale in comparison, losing that vital consistency. This is true for Spielberg, who has yet to blow me away this century. Quentin Tarantino has a vast following but anyone who made Pulp Fiction and also Deathproof should not be associated with the word consistency. David Fincher is pretty close were it not for Alien3 and I have yet to see all of Hitchcock and Kurosawa's works to comment on them.
But recently I watched a film, and that film was important because it meant I had completed the filmography of a director. The film was Duck, You Sucker though I intend to refer to it by the better name, A Fistful of Dynamite. The director: Mr one Sergio Leone. Completing Leone's filmography was by no means difficult; he only directed eight films and only six are readily available to find and watch.
Leone was an Italian film director, producer and writer. His parents were involved in the industry and Leone soon followed, picking up dream work experience on the sets of 1948's Bicycle Thieves, 1951's Quo Vadis and 1959's Ben-Hur. He took over as director during production of The Last Days of Pompeii in 1959 before making his full debut in 1961 with The Colossus of Rhodes. Whilst I will inevitably have to track this film down, for now I am continuing with my bittersweet view that I have seen all of Leone's 'Leone' movies (an Ennio Morricone score, American setting and his own perfected style). They are as follows:
A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), A Fistful of Dynamite (1971) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984).
The fact is, Leone could have made just three of those films and be considered an all time influential great. Not many can say that they created their own genre, but with A Fistful of Dollars Leone introduced the Spaghetti-western; a more unforgiving, violent type of frontier life dominated by anti-heroes and bandits. With his Dollars trilogy, Leone stripped America of law, women and religion and focused on the men it left behind. Critics were not used to this morally grey environment where lessons and messages are dropped in favour of technique, style and all round coolness. Yes Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name does dispense some satisfying justice, but more often than not it is in the service of money, rather than any sense of loyalty or duty. A Fistful of Dollars is perhaps the weakest of Leone's films. Whilst still a thing of beauty to behold, and is endlessly rewatchable, it suffers due to to its association with Kurosawa's samurai epic Yojimbo (1961) and how it is essentially a beat for beat remake. The security of going with an already well received story gives Leone a chance to focus on technique and style, and the intense close ups, massive wide shots, musical cues and black humour all start seeping into the screen.
With his new found genre and world, Leone continued with For a Few Dollars More. In this, Eastwood is joined by Lee Van Cleef as Mortimer, a fellow bounty hunter hoping to take down a gang. Their relationship allows a more dynamic narrative than just Eastwood alone like in AFOD. A fantastic western, FAFDM slips under the radar too often when it comes to all time greats.
The following year comes a film so famous you have heard it before you have seen it: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. One of my all time favourites, TGTBATU is near three hours of cinematic perfection. The second film gave us two characters, and this third film gives us three: Eastwood and Van Cleef return, but Eli Wallach steals the film as bandit Tuco. The three-way partnership and backstabbing creates an immeasurably fun atmosphere and Morricone's score has never been stronger. The final twenty minutes of this film is on another level entirety, it is Leone with no brakes, showing off every editing and camera trick he knows, all in the service of some serious tension. Quentin Tarantino was right when he named TGTBATU one of the best directed films of all time.
Three films over three years. One founded a genre, one confirmed it and one transcended it. And Leone was just getting warmed up. 1968 saw the release of Leone's magnum opus Once Upon a Time in the West. A masterpiece if ever there was one, this steers away from the European western and was filmed in Monument Valley, the stomping ground of Johns Ford and Wayne. A clear indication that Leone was offering something a bit more elegiac; a western that may have something to say as well as show. Indeed, OUATITW concerns a widowed lady who is caught between three men: one, a wronged bandit,; two, a vicious hired gun; and three, a mysterious drifter looking to settle a score. With Henry Fonda shockingly cast against type, and with Charles Bronson in the Eastwood role, Leone conducted a western so grand and precise many view it as the greatest ever made. When watching it it seems every action, blocking and framing has been carefully thought out. The dialogue sounds like poetry and every line carries weight. It is as close to perfect a piece of cinema has can be.
Again, Leone could have stopped there. He had deconstructed the western, then made a linear, classical western which fused European technique with Hollywood narrative. Out of those four, the last two are both considered in in the all time greatest films lists, with both featuring very highly on sites like IMDb.
In 1971 came A Fistful of Dynamite, sometimes seen as Duck, You Sucker, sometimes seen as Once Upon a Time in... the Revolution. Set in the Mexican revolution, Leone cast James Coburn as an Irish freedom fighter with Rod Steiger as a Mexican bandit who both get caught up the political action. Heroes still don't sit well with Leone: Steiger robs a train and rapes a women in the opening scene whist Coburn is shown to have gunned down three unarmed men. Yet the direction and characterisation is extremely good. The second act contains some of Leone's best work: the distant sounds of gunfire as Coburn observes dead bodies; a silent flashback when viewing a snitch; a motorbike rescue from firing squad. It is a severely underrated film and I eagerly anticipate my next viewing of it,
Leone was originally asked to direct The Godfather, but he rejected in favour of directing his own multi-generational gangster story, something that in 1984 would become his final work Once Upon a Time in America. A too often overlooked Robert DeNiro crime film, OUATIA alternated in its non linear narrative between children, men and elderly men and the effect greed and violence has on friendship. It is a mammoth film, clocking in well over three and a half hours long. This length frightened Warner Bros. who trimmed it down to a little shy of 140 minutes and turned it into a linear narrative. For a devastated Leone, this would be his last film. In time, the restored version has become more universal and, for those that have seen it, it is a truly great gangster movie.
Sergio Leone died in 1989 leaving behind seven films he fully directed. Five are westerns, a genre which Leone both admired and twisted, playing Tarantino with genre before Tarantino was born. It is hard to think of a cinematic landscape where Leone didn't exist: removing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly alone would cripple so many films post 1966. When it comes to understanding shots, juxtaposing images and editing, you have to look at the work this true auteur released. When it comes to consistency, Nolan comes close, but time will tell if his pictures will inspire and endure in the same legendary way Leone's have.
Thursday, 15 August 2019
Words on Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut
When it comes to troubled productions and random trivia about the filming, few pictures match the legendary story behind 1979’s Apocalypse Now. Anything that could go wrong did go wrong: there was the intense storms in the Philippines that delayed and damaged the set, Martin Sheen had a heart attack, the original actor bailed as the cameras started rolling, Marlon Brando turned up over weight and without having learnt his lines, director Francis Ford Coppola lost his mind.
The closest comparison from the 2010s is perhaps 2016’s The Revenant; which saw crew members fired and production moved from Canada to Argentina halfway through. Mad Max Fury Road also has its own inspired journey to the big screen. The fact that these three films are masterpieces is kind of head scratching.
Of course, labelling Apocalypse Now as a ‘masterpiece’ can be controversial. For some, namely men born in the 1960s, it is. For others it’s a pretentious slog, too concerned with displaying a more lucid interpretation of the Vietnam war than with perhaps a more flowing and involving story.
Before I trailed to the cinema on Tuesday 13th to see the 40th anniversary release of ‘The Final Cut’, I had only seen the film (theatrical edition) twice. The first time I was not overly fond, instead preferring the straight forwardness of Platoon. The second time was a bit more of a revelation. The visuals, thematic richness and the feeling of emptiness that the film left me with amalgamated into one of the best films I had seen.
So along comes The Final Cut. My dvd version runs at 150 odd minutes, excessive but worth it. This ran for a tad over 180 minutes; the extra 30 minutes of new footage made the ticket a little more worthwhile but to be honest, I would have paid the £13 ticket just to see the normal edition on the big screen.
My general view at the moment is this: the cinema experience was my favourite viewing of the film (obviously) but the DVD cut superior. If this is indeed the definitive version, then it’s a shame because I still feel there is a more concise, streamlined movie in there somewhere.
Apocalypse Now is, to reiterate, a Marmite movie. In the same vein as Titanic, Avatar and The Last Jedi, there are staunch defenders and firm haters. There is a lot of debate as to whether the film is pro or anti war; those that see it as pro war are perhaps more disapproving of the epic. I have always seen it as anti war: the exceedingly young escorts to Sheen’s Capt. Willard and their subsequent deaths throws massive shade towards conscription and that the war was fought as much by teenagers as it was by experienced troops. Then there is the lack of command shown throughout the film; the distant outpost is disorganised and leaderless whilst the seniors we do see are either nicely tucked away in their clean rooms with a range of dishes for lunch or are as unhinged as Willard’s target, Colonel Kurtz, as is the case with Robert Duvall’s unforgettable Kilgore. We also see civilians caught in the line of fire, easily triggered US soldiers and, in one bizarre sequence, the jeering soldiers scrambling to get onto the stage of a river set amphitheatre to get the show girls. War turns men into monsters. Or, as Jorah Mormont wisely puts it “there’s a beast inside every man, and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand.”
Apocalypse Now is a tricky film to critique. For me, it blurs the line between immense entertainment, sheer greatness and also leaving that artistic yet hollow bite which sometimes makes it hard to go ‘yeah I feel like watching Apocalypse Now now’. Some sequences are utterly enthralling. Some put you into a trance. And some are just dull.
The structure is as follows: act 1 sets up the mission to assassinate Marlon Brando’s Kurtz, who has set up a cult in Cambodia. It closes with the tour de force Ride of the Valkyries helicopter attack. Act 2 is a more episodic journey up river that depicts war with the gloves off. There is a tiger, a night time battle at a near abandoned outpost, the aforementioned scene with the show girls and a new (for me) sequence that takes places at a French plantation. The second act ends with their departure, and act 3 begins as the surviving gang arrive at Kurtz’s compound.
Each third feels different to the last, operating as a new stanza in a long and complex poem. The transition from traditional ‘war material’ into the psychedelic and surreal finale is always jarring, but it works. This is due to the constant mystery surrounding Kurtz. We hear a tape of his voice (the snail along the edge of the razor is one disgusting image) and see a photo. Brando, despite being billed first, does not show up until the final 30/40 minutes. But we eagerly await the confrontation.
It’s worth noting Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness here. It is a small book, but it has real weight and vivid imagery. Coppola’s idea of translating the essential part of that colonial-Africa set classic to the Vietnam War is beyond genius. I consider it one of the all time great adaptations. Why? Because it isn’t faithful to the book; it takes the upriver journey to Kurtz as the only material needed and works out everything else from there. The messages align and Apocalypse Now just feels like Conrad’s rich writing. It is smart, with enough originality in the film to justify it as both adaptation and an inspired idea.
“The horror. The horror,” makes the transition from book to film, but there are an abundance of great lines in the script: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” “terminate with extreme prejudice” “a six feet peak?!” The acting is masterful, with Sheen not getting the recognition he deserves, if only because Brando is just mesmerising and Duvall so wild and unpredictable.
The slow fade ins and outs and the layering of shots above or below one another ensures the perpetual dream like quality to the story. Visually, Apocalypse Now is a feast. Some of my favourite shots come from it, particularly the third act. Taking a sip of a beer every time aircraft are shown flying will give you liver failure, but it’s so beautifully captured it does not feel repetitive. Brando’s silhouetted form the first time we meet him, wreathed in shadows as we are gradually teased of his gargantuan form, is exceeding atmospheric. Willard rising head first from the water as lightning flashes over his muddied face is another wicked shot. In the cinema, it all looked fabulous.
And the sound! Oh boy the sound. The speakers knocked my socks off, reverberating down my cinema seat. My dad, on my right, was close to covering his ears as jets and choppers flew out of the screen or gunfire spat out at the audience.
Referring to an earlier point, the ‘better version’ of this is the one without the French plantation scene. It runs a bit too long, removing the focus on Kurtz and flagging the momentum. Yes it’s all acted and shot well, and there is an amusing visual gag, but it adds nothing. There is some gratuitous nudity for next to no reason (who unrobes just to close someone’s bed curtains?) and there is no pay off to the ideas and points made. In the two earlier stop offs at the checkpoint / amphitheatre and at the night time battle, there is little to advance the plot or story. But they were both watchable and added to that overwhelming feeling of futility in war.
Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut is what I would call a flawed masterpiece. Technically it’s outstanding. Thematically it’s rich. The acting superb. The entire mise en scene (and the Phillipines landscape) is gorgeous. It just has some dead weight on it, as well as an agonisingly small window between art and being pretentious for the sake of pretentious sake.
Very few films can wow you with action and visuals and also be a never ending supply for future film dissertations and film theory, yet Apocalypse Now exists to fuse those two often far removed ideas together.
Friday, 24 May 2019
16 Favourite Got Episodes
Having looked and pondered the quality of the eight seasons of the show, now it's time to break down individual episodes and see which ones reign supreme. There are 73 episodes of the show and going through every single one and placing them in some subjective order is far too tedious an activity. So, if we did eight seasons then I will do sixteen episodes.
There is an issue with 'ranking' or listing your favourite episodes because saying why one episode is better than another is just the same as saying Act I is better than Act III of a play; you need all of them in place for the grander picture and smaller episodes help set up the 'big' episodes, of which this list is largely comprised of. In choosing these I looked at a range of values the best episodes should have: how important they are to the show, how many memorable moments they have, re-watchability and overall craftsmanship and execution.
16. Season 1, Episode 9: Baelor
The first hint that episode 9s are always BIG episodes is here. For the unsuspecting viewers, this was the first time (and not the last) that shocked them to the point where they HAD to continue watching just to see how the effects will play out. Of course, the execution of honourable old Ned Stark becomes a catalyst for a whole heap of events. It's a monumental scene, fantastically directed and acted by both Sean Bean and Jack Gleeson as vicious King Joffrey.
But this episode is more than just a beheading; Varys and Ned's opening dialogue is riveting, Catelyn's negotiation with Walder Frey sets future plot points in motion, Robb's triumph on the battlefield and capture of Jaime also opens up a new point and Tyrion gets a little war speech. Looking back, a lot of characters make important decisions in this episode that are still felt seasons later.
15. Season 1, Episode 1: Winter is Coming
Reshot after a reportedly dreadful pilot episode, the series premiere is arguably the most rewatchable. Going all the way back to see all of the families together and everyone with their heads still on is refreshingly lovely and yet utterly tragic. It opens with White Walkers, setting the real threat and story of the show from the offset. Following this we are introduced to the Starks, direwolfs, the King and Queen, the Targaryen exiles, the Night's Watch, the Lannisters... There is a lot to take in and absorb but the basic protagonists are made apparent and the more nefarious individuals are also displayed. Remember that time you detested Jaime? Or when Tyrion had blonde hair? Or pulling 'yuck' faces to displays of incest? For nostalgia, this episodes deserves a spot. Also worth noting is that over 25 of the characters you are introduced to here will be dead by season 8.
14. Season 4, Episode 6: The Laws of Gods and Men
Season 4 is by far the most consistently brilliant of the 8; offering iconic moment after iconic moment. Episode 6 isn't a spectacle laden episode; Yara's attempted rescue of Theon is a very small flurry of action and sex, but it's Tyrion's trial that accommodates most of the runtime and it does feel like a set piece. We watch as witness after witness testify against Tyrion and his frustration grows. It becomes clear it is a sham of a trial, Oberyn is slouching carelessly and Pycelle lauds the late King Joffrey. Margaery, the only person who knows who really killed Joffrey, stays silent. And then out comes Tyrion's lover Shae to put the final nail in the coffin. What singlehandedly brings this episode onto the list is Peter Dinklage, whose explosive outburst is one for the ages. Four series of pent up rage towards his father and sister is released before his defiant demand for trial by combat. The stare down between father and son is epic and Oberyn's peaked interest is also chilling. Excellent scripting with masterful acting.
13. Season 4, Episode 9: The Watchers on the Wall
Neil Marshall, who so brilliantly helmed the Battle of Blackwater Bay, was brought back to direct this singularly focused episode on the battle between Wildlings and crows. Again, this is another display of Thrones challenging blockbuster movie making but for the small screen. Dedicating an hour to one story is genius for allowing breadth and emotional impact. We have Jon and Sam as our heroes, as well as their friends, and Tormund, Ygritte and Styr the Thenn as the villians. Blackwater has the benefit of inhabiting a greyer, more morally ambiguous area for the battle; this sustained set piece is more clear cut between friend and foe. But there's still a bunch of good stuff: the huge bonfire, Ser Alliser Thorne's speech, the 360 panorama shot of the characters clashing in the courtyard, the giants astride mammoths and the 'drop the scythe!' are all epic. The emotional impact comes from Jon and Ygritte's heartbreaking reunion and the deaths of Grenn and scared Pyp. This also gave us our first taste of Jon as a leader of men.
12. Season 4, Episode 10: The Children
Following on from the struggle at Castle Black, the season 4 finale gives us even more death in what was already a bloody set of episodes. The Children of the title explicitly refers to the Children of the Forest that Bran meets, but Daenerys has to lock her 'children' up, Tyrion proclaims that he has and always will be Tywin's son, Arya leaves Westeros and leaves childhood behind whilst Cersei also tells Tywin the truth that his children are incestuous lovers. There's a lot going on. Amongst the deaths (Jojen Reed, Tywin, Shae and The Hound at the time) there is a good scrap with some undead, and a titanic clash between Brienne and the Hound. It ends with hope for some characters: Tyrion and Varys are shipped away to Essos whilst Arya looks ahead to Braavos. A fitting end to the strongest season.
11. Season 3, Episode 5: Kissed by Fire
Perhaps not the most immediately memorable episode, especially for one ranked so highly, but thanks to several scenes it is a true classic of the show. Fire is the common theme in this episode; Jon and Ygritte, who is 'kissed by fire', consummate their relationship in a tender scene in a cave, the Hound is put on trial and has to face his fear of fire in order to defeat Beric Dondarrion and his flaming sword, and, in what I consider the most quintessential scene in the show, Jaime confesses to Brienne that he killed the Mad King to save 500,000 people from being burnt alive. It's this scene to focus in on: Jaime goes from the villainous and arrogant Lannister to a humanised person who broke his oath to do something honourable for the greater good, hoping to impress Ned Stark. What he got was scorn from all other knights and lords and he has had to put up with that ever since. In one dialogue we learn so much about someone and go from hating to understanding them. That's the beauty of Game of Thrones: the ability to carve a grey area between the goodies and baddies and to deliver on multi-dimensional characters who have a lot more to them than meets the eye. The character of Jaime and his arc might just be George RR Martin's greatest achievement, and it is this episode that begins that.
10. Season 6, Episode 5: The Door
There is some good stuff for the majority of this mid season finale, but it's the last ten minutes or so that delivers another shocking and emotional twist for the ages. What makes it so unsuspecting is that it revolves around poor Hodor, a supporting character who was always more of a plot device than an actual character and who I thought was the safest character in the entire show at one point. For the fans disillusioned with the show's direction and writing now it is off books, this is perhaps the best scene to highlight that Thrones does have brilliant writing still. The time travel paradox stuff is mind bending, but it does slot together. Much like Hardhome, this is a White Walker sequence that came out of nowhere and had me on tenterhooks. It is a bloodbath of minor characters: Three Eyed Raven, Summer and Leaf are all killed just before our darling giant Hodor (real name Wylis) gives it his all to hold the undead at bay. As the Stark theme kicks in and we see his face getting torn and scratched, you can guarantee all viewers were crying. A horror set piece but with the emotional impact of a full speed train.
9. Season 3, Episode 9: The Rains of Castamere
Similar to The Door, season 3's penultimate episode is a reasonably strong episode until the final ten minutes, where the shock twist uppercuts you and leaves you lying on the floor aghast at the carnage. The episode is called The Rains of Castamere, but to everyone it will forever be The Red Wedding. This is the episode that, if you are getting a friend into the show, you really, really want them to watch. For the non-book readers this sealed Game of Thrones as its own genre of merciless butchery of loveable characters. Forget the antics in Yunkai or with the Wildlings, the massacre at a family wedding of the entire Stark army will have you watching the credits mute. As tough as it is, you can't help but praise the scene's execution: Michelle Fairley sells it perfectly as Catelyn, her awareness of the Lannister victory song being played, the chainmail under Roose Bolton's sleeve... And then out comes a dagger to Talisa Stark's pregnant belly, crossbow bolts strike down Robb and throats are slit everywhere. It's carnage, and in minutes Walder Frey springboards up the list of most hated characters. Unforgettable.
*At this point in the list, these episodes below all rank as television's finest hours. A lot of the previous entires had genius scenes or moments but might have lacked consistency throughout; the remaining 8 episodes I would argue are all pristine hours of television throughout their runtimes.*
8. Season 4, Episode 8: The Mountain and the Viper
Death is on the cards for a lot of people in episode 8. A group of ironborn are flayed alive by Ramsay, the inhabitants of Mole's Town are massacred, and in its final minute Game of Thrones serves up the single most brutal and gruesome death thus far. But there are also the great character moments: Ygritte choosing to spare Gilly and Baby Sam, Sansa lying in order to have leverage over Littlefinger and at last playing the game, Roose legitimising Ramsay and a heartfelt and philosophical conversation between Tyrion and Jaime. In it they discuss their cousin Orson Lannister who crushed beetles with next to no reason. Swap Orson for George RR Martin and the beetles for characters, and you have a juicy metaphor right there. And then we get the eponymous duel between Pedro Pascal's one season wonder Oberyn Martell and the iron clad Ser Gregor Clegane. It's a cracking clash of spear and sword and two differing fighting techniques and literally every time I rewatch it I STILL think Oberyn will finish the job. Alas he gets his teeth smashed to splinters, his eyes gouged out by metal thumbs and his skull shattered like a dropped watermelon. The reactions are priceless: Tyrion's disbelief, Ellaria's haunting screams, Jaime's revile and Cersei's smug look of victory. Pure Thrones.
7. Season 7, Episode 4: The Spoils of War
Before season 7 began there were rumours of a Dothraki battle said to be the same scale as Battle of the Bastards, if not bigger. When episode 4 came they dropped this big visual effects bonanza in the final fifteen minutes of a rather short episode. Unfortunately, it isn't quite on the level of Bastardbowl, but it does do the Blackwater style of having loved characters on both sides of the conflict. Seeing Drogon unleashed on troops is remarkable; offering movie effects and scale on a far smaller budget. The Dothraki as well finally get their chance to let loose and the whole sequence looks and feels grand. I will admit to being in the Lannister camp on this one and cheered when Bronn's ballista skewered the dragon. Jaime's charge at the end recalls a conversation with Robert Baratheon in season 1 about ending a war with one kill, which is a nice throwback. As impressive as the action is, there is also great interplay between Arya and Brienne as well as Bran and Littlefinger. Arya's whole sequence of entering Winterfell hits home the most, giving the episode that emotional boost. An outstanding mid season finale.
6. Season 7, Episode 7: The Dragon and the Wolf
With a few lines of dialogue to explain how much time had passed between scenes, Episode 6 'Beyond the Wall' easily could have made this end of the list: it had the characters, action and drama but lacked internal logic and explanation. Luckily, this following episode more than makes up for it. It brings back some good old political outmanoeuvring and backstabbing like seasons 1-3, reminding the show of its title. The Dragonpit sequence starts tense, reuniting characters on different sides and bringing together Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister for the first time. Forgetting the ropey feel of the scenes that preceded it in episode 5/6, the trial and execution of Littlefinger will always be a classic twist and the Jon Snow reveal that he is indeed the heir to the Seven Kingdoms is both beautifully scored and somewhat cathartic. And if you want action, then watching the Night King obliterate the Wall astride the undead Viserion will provide this and the series' most spectacular sequence of CGI.
5. Season 5, Episode 8: Hardhome
Director Miguel Sapochnik first earned his name with this sucker punch episode. Perhaps a reason why this is such a strong entry is that it focuses mainly on our principle heroes: Jon, Sansa, Arya and the new duo of Tyrion and Daenerys. The interactions between drunken dwarf and noble queen are smoothly written and births a new partnership that will later on bring up a whole bunch of drama when it comes to fighting Tyrion's family. Arya's Braavos story at long last gets a little boost as she investigates the outdoors and Sansa learns Rickon and Bran may just be alive. But it is Jon who leads the excitement here. His negotiations to bring tens of thousands of Wildlings south of the Wall ends when out of nowhere the Army of the Dead arrive. This twenty minute set piece is less of a battle and more of a full on massacre followed by the most haunting mass resurrection seen. Sapochnik makes other zombie flicks seem tame with this all out horror assault. The visuals are stunning and there are so many memorable shots: the confusion on a White Walker's face as Valyrian steel blocks his attack; Jon, Tormund, Edd and Wun Wun the giant running full pelt towards the camera; the Night King raising his arms in defiance, summoning many, many more wights to his force. Not featured in the books, this sequence is a white knuckled thrill ride.
4. Season 8, Episode 3: The Long Night
Regardless of the hate towards Season 8 (which started after this episode aired and went downhill from there), I loved The Long Night. I had the correct idea in watching it in a darkened room and found no problem with the camera work and visibility. It is a relentless 80 minutes of television, the tension building from the start before the battle between the defenders of Winterfell and the endless hordes of the Army of the Dead fully begins after ten minutes or so. The visuals are simply awe inspiring; the lines of Dothraki with ignited araks, the reflection of flames in Melisandre's eyes, Beric's crucifix pose, twelve White Walkers emerging from the orange glow that feels like Blade Runner 2049. The fact that this is television is even more startling. And yet is immensely sustained; we cut to the civilians in the crypts and alternate between the fighting on the ground with the aerial dragon battle. There's a suspenseful silent sequence of a defeated Arya evading undead in a library and when 'The Night King' track begins, it scores possibly my favourite moment as Theon and Jorah give their all and the Night King enters the godswood. It has flaws in the depicted battle tactics, but from direction, music and visuals this is just stellar.
3. Season 2, Episode 9: Blackwater
In terms of writing, Blackwater is still the show's peak, not least due to this episode being scripted by GRRM himself. This climax to season 2 pits rightful king Stannis Baratheon against the forces of King's Landing, led by Joffrey and Tyrion. Thrones has always excelled at dividing your loyalties and choosing between wanting Stannis to win because a) it means the Lannisters will die b) he's the rightful king and c) Sansa may be safer, and wanting Stannis to lose because a) Tyrion, Pod and Bronn will die is a dilemma for the ages. And yet the outcome is negative for both: Stannis loses but Tyrion is left bleeding out on the mud and is relegated in the next episodes to an inferior position. Despite being shot at night, the battle is still gripping with some disgusting moments of gore and bloodshed. Inside the Red Keep as this goes on however, Lena Headey's drunken acting is incredible and Cersei's analogy of animals to Tommen is heartfelt. Tyrion here is the MVP though, giving a belter of a speech and announcing Game of Thrones to the world with THAT wildfire explosion.
2. Season 6, Episode 9: Battle of the Bastards
The first television episode to gain over 100,000 votes on IMDb. It held a perfect 10.0 for a commendable amount of time. It is still a 9.9. Naturally, Battle of the Bastards hits the top TOP end of the list. It is a perfect hour. Miguel Sapochnik was handed the reins to this after the success of Hardhome and it was clear what they were going for: how do we make the best episode ever? The answer is a ballooned budget, 70 horses, 25 days of shooting for a 15 minute sequence and television's most satisfying death. Before the main event, it is easy to forget the goings on in Meereen. But the action starts here; releasing all three near fully grown dragons on the slaver's navy whilst Grey Worm scores a double throat slit and even Daario joins in with a sweet decapitation. After the fire side of the episode is dealt with, we get the snow. Or Jon Snow. The Battle of the Bastards is as cinematic as they come; skipping past Hardhome, Blackwater Bay and the Battle of Castle Black as the show's premier battle scene.
From the taut execution of Rickon Stark's death, to the one minute unbroken shot of Jon in the midst of the carnage, to the triumphant arrival of the Vale Knights; Bastardbowl is a rollercoaster. Thrones has handed us many satisfying moments but in the final ten minutes we get three corkers: the Stark banner unfurled from Winterfell, Jon battering Ramsay with twenty-one punches and Sansa feeding that twisted bastard to his hounds. A roaring triumph for the heroes.
1. Season 6, Episode 10: The Winds of Winter
If Battle of the Bastards is The Two Towers equivalent, thanks to its fantastic battle finale, then The Winds of Winter is The Return of the King for its combination of spectacle and how almost every scene is a 'YES' punch the air scene. Thought the finale would be a cool down after the intensity of episode 9? Wrong. We start with piano music at Loras Tyrell's trial. The music builds and builds as it turns to Cersei's trial, a trial for which Cersei is not present. And then more named characters are offed here then any other moment: Pycelle, Lancel, the High Sparrow, Loras, Margaery and Mace Tyrell and then poor King Tommen casts himself out of his tower and the door shuts on Septa Unella. Cersei's vengeance is epic and utterly deserved, removing all of the baggage from King's Landing and installing herself as Queen. More vengeance is displayed when Arya Stark carves Walder Frey throats up after feeding him pies made from his sons.
Any more great moments? Sam's look of wonder at the Citadel, Tyrion's clear emotion at his Hand of the Queen pin, the transition cut from Lyanna Stark's baby to Jon Snow followed by his coronation as King of the North, Davos' emotional outburst to Melisandre (finally giving Liam Cunningham some dramatic meat), Olenna Tyrell shutting up the Sand Snakes, Daenerys setting sail to Westeros with an almighty army and, in a personal favourite moment, Jon's smile when Sansa tells him winter has arrived. It is all incredible, but the real praise should be to Ramin Djawdi, who knocks the score out the park with this one.
Tuesday, 21 May 2019
A Ranking of All Eight GoT Seasons
GoT has ended, but writing and discussing it hasn't. Below is my ranking of the seasons of this fantasy epic, from least best to best.
8. Season 5
Defining Episodes: Hardhome, The Dance of Dragons, Mother's Mercy
Main Storylines: Cersei takes power in King's Landing by giving power to the High Sparrow and his Faith Militant. Jon is elected Lord Commander and tries to negotiate peace between Wildlings and the Night's Watch. Littlefinger sells Sansa to wed Ramsay Bolton as Stannis launches an assault on the North. Arya trains in Braavos. Tyrion and Varys travel to Meereen, meeting Jorah en route. Daenerys struggles keeping the slavers and the Sons of the Harpy under control. Jaime heads to Dorne.
Season 5 is often seen as the weakest season simply due to how forgettable the first half of it is. The season was never really going to be better than the four seasons prior for several reasons: George RR Martin was no longer involved in the pre production; the source material of A Feast For Crows and Dance With Dragons are a lot weaker than the first three books; and there is a gaping whole in the show without Tywin Lannister (and at the time The Hound). This isn't to say S5 is bad; it isn't. It is mesmerising television that is more a trial for how GoT can continue without GRRM just as the show begins to overtake the book, leaving the writers to start coming up with their own ideas. This can be seen as good and bad.
The bad side is Dorne. It is a weak story in the books and here it is even worse, even if the decision to send Jaime there does make sense. It is sloppy, badly executed and badly written. It undermines a lot of potentially cool characters like Areo Hotah too. The religious storyline in King's Landing is also a drag, and the slave masters story in Meereen gets tiresome.
However, I actually got behind the writers' idea of putting Sansa in Winterfell, putting her in a place to exact revenge. The story at the Wall is great; Stannis leaves to attack Winterfell as new Lord Commander Jon heads to Hardhome and also into one of the greatest sequences in the show. But the strength of S5 largely lies in its brutal final three episodes. It is perhaps the show's most grim and doom and gloom set of episodes, but there is still a lot of greatness to be found.
7. Season 8
Defining Episodes: A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, The Long Night, The Iron Throne
Main Storylines: Jon, Daenerys and their cohorts fight the Army of the Dead before taking the war to Cersei in King's Landing.
Season 8 is to television what The Last Jedi is to movies. Both caused deep, unfixable fissures in their respectively gigantic fandoms (there are also similarities in that whilst both had the visual / cinematography / music / direction aspects praised, the writing and 'subversions' were heavily criticised). It is tough to compare a streamlined six episode season with a more sprawling ten episode season, but in terms of where it begins and where it ends, and how entertaining it is along the way, I would name this higher than S5. The entirety of this season is essentially made up by David and Dan (D & D) on a very vague outline by GRRM. Which is why they are getting the same stick as Rian Johnson did for The Last Jedi. S8 does have a lot of strengths: the acting, action, direction, visuals, camera work, production design, pyrotechnics, stunt work, make-up, costumes and music are outstanding, pushing the bar for filmmaking as a whole. But the writing is admittedly weak. Generally the consensus is 'I don't mind the choices that characters make, I do mind the lack of build up to get to those choices'. Six episodes was not enough, I would've preferred another episode between 3 and 4 as the focus shifts towards Daenerys. If that had been done, and a few changes to Jaime's story and the sack of King's Landing, this probably would be a lot higher up. I will rewatch this set of six a lot; I think there are some fantastic scenes and moments throughout that just lack the intelligent stitching together that made Thrones the power show to begin with. I do also have issues with the numbers of Unsullied and Dothraki depicted post episode 3.
But whilst I can nitpick this season to bits, I do love so much of it. Episode 3 'The Long Night' is stunning and relentless and well sustained, with the final ten minutes being my favourite sequence across all 73 episodes. The second episode is a heartwarming sendoff to a bunch of characters, spending time together as if it is their last night with one another. Podrick's song is chillingly beautiful and Brienne being knighted is poignant and satisfying. And character arc aside, nobody can deny that the sack and destruction of King's Landing is a technical tour de force and Cleganebowl is as epic a confrontation as can be. And the final twenty minutes of the final episode is unbelievably emotionally powerful. You can hate and argue away, but was GoT ever truly going to end up to your lofty expectations?
6. Season 7
Defining Episodes: The Spoils of War, Beyond the Wall, The Dragon and the Wolf
Main Storylines: Bran and Arya return to Winterfell as Sansa rules. Daenerys lands at Dragonstone and begins her war for the Iron Throne against Cersei. Jon meets Daenerys in the hopes of gaining an ally to fight the White Walkers. Sam Tarly saves Jorah Mormont and heads back North. Euron Greyjoy joins Cersei and helps lead several key victories. The Wall falls.
For the diehard book fans, Season 7 was the beginning of the end for GoT. It is all original material and some logic gaps and plot holes wrinkled noses before S8 fully made some throw up. But again, I have no overall problems with this season except the time jumps. I'm sure if you sat down and detailed all the things going on and where characters move about that there could be some excuse as to how Westeros seems to have shrunk. Or you could just focus on the intense pacing, intriguing character meet ups and action spectacle. The first four episodes are dedicated to Daenerys' war with Cersei. There is a naval skirmish, the taking of Casterly Rock and then Highgarden and the fiery Battle of the Goldroad (I refuse to call it the Loot Train Battle). The second half of the season, episodes 5,6,7, are dedicated to getting ready to defeat the approaching Night King, which sees an elite suicide squad of fan favourites go beyond the wall to capture a Wight. It seems silly but it is class entertainment and the battle on the ice lake remains my favourite action scene of the show. S7 does skimp on the death (we only lose Littlefinger, Olenna Tyrell and the Sand Snakes) and loses a lot of its political scheming until the finale. It may be more 'Hollywoodised' but as spectacle and character goes, it is a strong and largely consistent season, let down a little by how small Westeros now feels.
5. Season 3
Defining Episodes: Kissed by Fire, Second Sons, The Rains of Castamere
Main Storylines: The War of the Five King continues. Robb Stark loses allies and has to seek help from the Freys. Jon infiltrates the Wildlings and falls in love with Ygritte whilst a mutiny occurs in the Night's Watch. Arya encounters the Brotherhood Without Banners and the Hound. Tywin rules from King's Landing and weds Tyrion to Sansa. Daenerys conquers Astapor and Yunkai, gaining the Unsullied.
When it comes to getting friends and family into the show, the season you want them all to finish is season 3. Because S3 has the Red Wedding and as a moment of television, as a twist, as a series of brutal deaths it is impossible to beat. Now I'm not saying that one unflinching sequence is why S3 is higher than the others, but it comes close enough. S3 follows book 3 closely as the War of the Five Kings loses momentum. In comparison to seasons 6,7,8 it seems this is a 'quieter' set of episodes in that it only has a few big moments: Daenerys' 'Dracarys' and employment of the Unsullied being one of them, and Jon and co. climbing the Wall perhaps the other. But S3 has so much fascinating character work. Tyrion's loss of power in the capital is strangely heartfelt, whilst Jaime telling Brienne about killing King Aerys to save King's Landing from wildfire is Thrones at its most quintessential. Episode 5 'Kissed by Fire' is a severely underrated episode; it has that scene as well as Jon breaking his vows with Ygritte, the Hound's trial against Beric, Robb's execution of Karstark... A bunch of great moments.
But wiping out the 'good guys' and their entire army in one smooth stroke is masterfully done and will always be a defining moment of the show.
4. Season 6
Defining Episodes: The Door, Battle of the Bastards, The Winds of Winter
Main Storylines: After being resurrected, Jon and Sansa plan to take back Winterfell from the Boltons. Bran Stark learns the history of Westeros with the Three Eyed Raven. Cersei Lannister is put on trial by the Faith Militant. Jaime Lannister negotiates the surrender of Riverrun. Arya finishes her training in Braavos. Tyrion governs Meereen before Daenerys returns with the Dothraki.
Season 6 was the last of the ten episode seasons, and it uses that length to its advantage one last time. The pieces are still scattered and characters divided, but S6 begins bringing them all together ready for the final two seasons. Tyrion governing in Meereen gives that location a narrative boost and Daenerys, isolated from both dragons and guards, takes power by herself and earns an entire khalasar of Dothraki to return with. Bran's visions and history lessons at the weirwood tree are interesting, especially the Tower of Joy flashback. Seeing Ser Arthur Dayne fight for several minutes proves a wonder to behold; doing the character justice and giving us my favourite sword fight of the show. Inevitably Jon Snow comes back to life and reunites with Sansa as they begin rallying support. Cersei's story in King's Landing is mixed; watching the zombie Mountain kill is awesome but the High Sparrow and his zealots are so bloody boring. It does have weak episodes (1,3,4,6,7,8 are more average instalments) but episode 5 'The Door' is so emotional it could be described as psychological trauma as Hodor sacrifices himself (does this make him Kingsguard?). Then comes episode 9 and 10, both directed by the superb Miguel Sapochnik in the greatest one-two punch of the show. The Battle of the Bastards is a cinematic master class and The Winds of Winter is a taut and rewarding finale. In these two episodes everything is ready for the finale and characters are where they need to be. To echo Gandalf, "the board is set, the pieces are moving."
3. Season 2
Defining Episodes: The Ghost of Harrenhal, The Old Gods and the New, Blackwater
Main Storylines: Stannis Baratheon enters the game as King Robert's true heir, preparing his siege on King's Landing where Tyrion has just become Hand of the King. Daenerys and her baby dragons are hosted at Qarth. Jon journeys beyond the Wall to scout the Wildling army. Robb Stark, Renly Baratheon, Balon Greyjoy and Joffrey Baratheon also all vie for power. Arya travels with a group of Night's Watch recruits and serves as Tywin Lannister's cupbearer at Harrenhal. Theon Greyjoy takes Winterfell.
If Season 2 had the budget of the seventh season, it would feature multiple onscreen battles throughout as the War of the Five Kings tears through the landscape. Thankfully it doesn't, as this would detract from later battle sequences and instead we get another strong character season. Jon Snow is great throughout season 5, Ned Stark is great in season 1, Oberyn is exhilarating in season 4- but if any character absolutely owns a season it is Tyrion here. In the first episode he waddles into the capital as Hand of the King and watching him play the game is hilarious: dismissing Janos Slynt, ratting out and arresting Pycelle, installing Bronn and the hill tribes as his soldiers and berating Joffrey throughout. Peter Dinklage just inhabits Tyrion. Then there's 'Blackwater', the penultimate episode that gives us that wildfire explosion and Tyrion's rousing call to arms. This was when GoT fused character and wit with serious movie style VFX, announcing itself as a television force to be reckoned with. 'Blackwater' will, for me, always be the show's biggest achievement in writing.
Tyrion aside, S2 has some solid twists and plots. Stannis assassinating Renly provides the 'big' death of the season, whilst Theon betraying the Stark cause sets in motion seasons of punishments later on. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau gets to sink his teeth into some of Jaime's best scenes and Jon's adventures beyond the wall is another favourite storyline. With the loss of Ned Stark, who was the show's main actor, S2 switches things up, playing more to the ensemble and giving Tyrion the spotlight.
Also worthy of mention is another deviation from the novels where Arya serves Tywin Lannister at Harrenhal. It's a smart move and their scenes together are riveting, with Maisie Williams ably standing up to Charles Dance. One of these, involving Littlefinger, ranks among the most suspenseful across eight seasons.
2. Season 1
Defining Episodes: Winter is Coming, You Win or You Die, Baelor
Main Storylines: Ned Stark is appointed Hand of the King and investigates the death of previous Hand Jon Arryn. Jon Snow joins the Night's Watch. Viserys Targaryen weds his sister Daenerys to Khal Drogo. Catelyn Stark imprisons Tyrion as the clouds of war begin to fall on Westeros.
Season 1 has aged like cheese, or wine. After S6/7 I would've had S1 a bit lower but post the ending of Thrones, this set of ten episodes has proved rewarding and, with hindsight, is a truly stunning achievement. It is enthralling and intriguing and mysterious; mapping out the many locations and characters with pin point precision. Despite all the narrative heavy lifting to be done, it still finds time for wit and comedy and intense ultra violence. Ned Stark's investigation into Jon Arryn's death, and his own eventual downfall is horrible to rewatch, you see his mistakes and missed opportunities and it is agonising; just as GRRM intended. King's Landing is the place to be this season, but Tyrion's adventures around Westeros are entertaining and Daenerys and Khal Drogo make for a strangely watchable couple. It's the season of incest, sex, beheadings, more sex, Robert Baratheon being an absolute unit and the height of political machinations. Few images are as iconic as the finale's closing shot, as an unburnt and nude Daenerys arises, three baby dragons around her.
Eight years later and seven seasons later and S1 is still getting the payoff it originally planted. It's where it all began and of all the seasons is most rewarding on a rewatch.
1. Season 4
Defining Episodes: The Laws of Gods and Men, The Mountain and the Viper, The Children
Main Storylines: Tyrion Lannister is imprisoned and put on trial as Oberyn Martell enters the game, looking for vengeance. Daenerys Targaryen conquers and rules Slaver's Bay. The Night's Watch prepare for battle against the Wildling armies of Mance Raydar. Arya Stark and the Hound wonder war torn Westeros whilst Sansa heads to the Vale with Littlefinger.
I don't see how people could argue Season 4 isn't the best season. It just is. It has the breakneck pacing of S7/8 but across ten episodes and is filled with twists and reveals, deaths and deep conversations. It is easily the most consistent when evaluating its episodes, which I will now do. Episode 1: Oberyn arrives in town, Arya and the Hound wipe out a pub of soldiers, Jaime seeks out his family. Episode 2: Joffrey dies! Episode 3: Daenerys arrives in Meereen and Daario gets that sweet kill! Episode 4: Olenna admits to killing Joffrey, Dany conquers Meereen, Jaime knows Tyrion is innocent and sets Brienne off with a new sword and Podrick. Episode 5: Jon takes out the mutineers. Episode 6: Tyrion's trial! Episode 7: Littlefinger takes power in the Vale by murdering Lysa Arryn, Oberyn volunteers to be Tyrion's champion, Hot Pie makes a welcome return. Episode 8: the Wildlings attack Mole's Town, Sansa plays the game, Theon secures Moat Cailin, Oberyn fights the Mountain... Episode 9: the Battle of Castle Black. Episode 10: Tyrion kills Tywin, the Hound fights Brienne, Arya leaves Westeros, Bran gets to his destination, Stannis arrives at the Wall.
Now how's that for big moments. And then remember all the scenes with the Hound and Arya, Jaime and Tyrion's scenes and the fantastic deaths we get of named and unnamed characters. For me, S4 was the sweet synthesis of thoughtful writing and massive scale and action. There are too many MVPs to count but for being an absolute one-season-wonder, Oberyn Martell has to be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)