The Book of Eli (The Hughes Brothers, 2010)

If you only see one church sermon disguised as a “post-apocalyptic action westerner” this year.......

The biggest irony about the Hughes Brothers latest film The Book of Eli is that their last film From Hell appears to be a complete contrast to the alternative title to this Denzel Washington star vehicle, which must have been He came from the Heavens.

Simply put, this film is religious propaganda wrapped up in a stylish gun-toting, shades wearing action hero. It concerns one man (Eli) and his book on a journey to the West in a barren America that has been ruined by nuclear fallout. It becomes clear very early on that the book in concern is the Holy Bible, and he is on a spiritual quest to deliver it into the right hands and provide hope through its words. Breaking up the thin plot are long, expansive shots of Eli walking through the despondent Californian desert. If Oscar winning Washington can do one thing better than the rest, it’s walking.

Due to the lack of O-Zone layer thanks to the result of some unknown war (the reason of which is never explored) all of the characters are forced to wear shades. Cue many long shots of Eli strolling through the desert looking super-cool. If any preacher looked this good, I think the church would have a whole new youth image. Like many action hero’s he never runs, never panics, never loses his cool. Herein lays my first major problem with the film, its action.

The Book of Eli is indeed an action film and there is a fair bit of it. To the directors credit it is shot beautifully, and with variety. Highlights include a silhouette sword fight reminiscent of Kill Bill, a western style shoot out, and a fantastic attack on a large house done in one single swooping camera take. As visually stimulating as it is, our Hero Eli, never appears to batter an eye lid or let loose one single beat of sweat to the impossible odds that face him time and time again. This is a rookie error that is seen in many other action films like Underworld, Tomb Raider, Wanted and other subpar attempts at cinema. If the protagonist is never intimidated by the task that lies before him, why should the audience be? Denzel reacts and speaks like he is in a Convent; quiet, calm, cool but very un-engaging. Coming from the man who delivered such powerhouse performances in Training Day and Malcolm X I expected much more.

The Hughes Brothers are never sure what film style to use, gritty handheld camera, technically impressive track shots, huge swooping panoramic vistas, these are all used to great effect, but equate to nothing more than stylish imagery making up for lack of substance. The dystopian background seems merely a catalyst to use the salvation of religion as the films ‘hero’. In one final shot the bible is shelved next to the Tora and the Koran, pushing them aside out of shot. This sums up the films message, that Christianity is the way to save ourselves. Direct shots on Eli appear to fly straight past him, for no other reason than the fact he is a spiritual being. However, for such a riotous man he appears to take no remorse in gutting, decapitation, and shooting his way through the state of California.

Within the film with is stylish imagery and great soundtrack are a thousand wasted opportunities. Cannibals, savage muggers, the great Gary Oldman as a sadistic town mayor are all pushed aside to make room for the sermon. It must be said that there are some novel ideas such as trading household items as currency and the fact that even at the end of the civilised world Apple still dominate the gadget market with their IPod.

The Book of Eli is not a bad film, just not a great one. It has its potentials but the overarching message is nothing new, nothing moving, and nothing short of preachy. Surely a film that wants to bring forth Christianity and present it as the answer to our troubles should not leave you longing for more stylish blood thirsty violence. Amen.

Up In The Air (Jason Reitman, 2009)

Effortless, Breezy, Oscar Winning?

Up in the Air, one of the few films this rather irksome award season that you may have heard of. I went as many patrons did expecting to see an Oscar worthy performance by Clooney, a poignant powerful script, and leave feeling like I’d see something special. The danger with Oscar hype is that these preconceptions will often hinder your potential to view a film for what it is. Up in the Air is indeed a very good piece of Hollywood cinema, if not quite up there with director Jason Reitman’s last film, Juno. If you go, as many, with these ‘award winning film’ thoughts in your head, you may leave with a sense of disappointment, maybe wondering if you had walked into upper-market rom-com. However, to say a film is academy award worthy makes you beg the question what is the formula. ‘Oscar winning film’

Does Up in the Air make you think? [tick] Does it stir up strong emotional responses? [tick] Does it feel like a film baiting for an Oscar? No. Glancing at the Best Picture nominees from the last few years, this film doesn’t appear to fit in. The adjective Breezy, which is not a deliberate pun on the title, perfectly sums up the tone and pacing of the script. This adjective could not be applied to No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed, or (the overrated) Crash. These are the films with the tone, pacing, and therefore the feel of an Oscar winning film.

Beginning with an enthralling credit sequence taking the audience on a virtual plane ride before landing into one of the many Airports dominating the films locations, the film sets out a glossy shine that appears to belong to a British Airways advert. We meet, initially v.i.a voice over, Ryan Bingham. His job is to fly to various cities in America and fire people. Due to the recession it is a rather busy time for him. Along with his job he discusses his love for the superficialities of business travel; the loyalty cards, the duty-free shopping, the cold, clinical Hilton Hotels. These are the things that dominate his life. Thus begins one of two heavy metaphors running throughout the film. He prefers life on the road, in the air, away from the emotional responsibilities of family life, and even friendship.

The second metaphor is something Bingham uses during his second job, doing a motivational speech entitled ‘What’s in your bag?’ Here he discusses the liberating feeling and lifestyle you can attain by taking on no emotional baggage. This is his ‘philosophy’ and has led him to leading what appears to be a genuinely happy life of isolation. He is homeless, single and happy.

Unsurprisingly he picks up emotional baggage, in the form of an impending family wedding, a young naive co-worker, and an attractive casual affair with a woman who in her own words is ‘like him but with a vagina’. The script leads you down familiar territory as he discovers that the most important things in life do indeed come with emotional baggage, once again expressed unsubtly with him carrying around a picture of his sister and her fiancé to take photos of at various American landmarks.

Bingham’s pivotal moment when he discovers the joy of real, human, connection is a joy to watch. Reitman’s direction switches from glossy aeroplane commercial mode to a handheld, grainy style, and we see something increasingly rare in modern popular cinema which aspires to be more than a ‘chick flick’ or 80’s homage, an unashamedly sentimental montage. This consists of Bingham and the two women in his life crashing a corporate party and letting loose. Due to the films breeziness, I had relaxed into the film enough to assume that Bingham had changed and the film would pan out in predictable fashion. It doesn’t...but that’s not to say it changes to become emotionally abrasive like many of the award films do.

This is a film very much of its time, a credit crunch drama, and despite the films tone, I felt tense throughout it. Scene after scene of people getting fired are played with great naturalism, with Bingham’s victims showing various levels of dignity and emotional trauma as they receive the news. The film never goes for great tear-jerking scenes, but it is emotionally draining and unnerving to watch previously successful men and women lose their jobs. Maybe this films breezy tone is more deceiving that it first seems.

As the film continues, you will find yourself questioning Bingham’s life style. At first he is happy to get his emotional fulfilment through flirty texts, loyalty card queue jumping and small talk. When he begins to branch out and develop personal attachments, his lonely life style appears far less appealing. It takes skill to make the audience feel empathy towards a seemingly superficial character who fires people for a living, but Reitman manages it. So much attention is dedicated towards him, that many of the other characters appear to be there to simply point out various flaws, or potentials within Clooney’s character. Jason Bateman, J.K Simmons, and the fantastic Vera Farminga playing the romantic interest are all used sparingly then brushed aside as the film puts its heavy focuses on Bingham. Despite this, characterisation never feels two dimensional.

Bingham’s story, is one which takes its time, and due to the pacing, feels much longer than its 100 minutes running time. You may leave slightly underwhelmed, unmoved, and confused about all the fuss. The performances are excellent, yet so subtle at most times, that they feel too natural to be award winning. The direction is sublime, yet its seemingly effortless nature hides all the thought that has gone behind it. Go into it with a clear head; this is a film that doesn’t fit in to the award cannon, and you will leave feeling refreshed and thoughtful. The films open ending will lead to discussion; its ideas will stay in your mind, its images will stick in your memory. This is a film deserved of many awards, but not one that leaps out at you straight away. Like the films breezy tone, give it time, and it will wash over you.