I Give It a Year

For F*** Magazine, Singapore

I GIVE IT A YEAR

2013

Starring: Rafe Spall, Rose Byrne, Simon Baker, Anna Faris

Directed by: Dan Mazer

            Much as we’ve been told not to, it’s human nature to jump to conclusions. There’s just a lot of satisfaction in yelling out “called it!” when events unfold just as one has predicted. For example, it’s easy to look at a film and write it off based on its genre – and there have indeed been numerous stinkers from the chick flick bunch. Along comes I Give It a Year to stab the institution of marriage in its side.

            The film tells the story of corporate high-flyer Nat (Byrne) and struggling novelist Josh (Spall), who marry after a whirlwind seven-month-long courtship. Nat’s older sister Naomi (Minnie Driver), herself stuck in an unhappy marriage, reckons that Nat and Josh will stay married for a year at the longest – hence the title. The lead couple’s union is tested by Josh’s ex-girlfriend Chloe (Faris) and Nat’s business client Guy (Baker), both of whom seem to be better matches for Josh and Nat respectively. “If you can make it through the first year of marriage, you can make it through anything,” Josh’s father reassures him. But once they’re over that twelve month hurdle, it’s plain sailing. Right?

            I Give It a Year is writer-director Dan Mazer’s feature film directing debut. He’s best known for co-writing Ali G Indahouse, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and Brüno with Sacha Baron Cohen – as such, one can expect a romantic comedy with a fair bit more bite. The film isn’t aiming to be a feel-good date movie, but it is aiming at the funny bone and more often than not, hits a bull’s-eye. A film about marital trials and tribulations could have easily become a little heavy, but Mazer keeps the gags flying thick and fast.

            The film seems to exist in a world where nobody has much tact, and there is a fair bit of cringe comedy in store. Comedian Stephen Merchant, as Josh’s friend Dan, starts the ball rolling with a very inappropriate best man’s speech at the wedding. The movie goes on to offer up doves flying into ceiling fans, an awkward game of charades, an inept marriage counsellor preoccupied with her anatomically-correct dolls, a look at the myriad logistical challenges of having a threesome and arguments about misheard song lyrics. Not all the jokes work, but there are just so many of them and by the end, a good amount of laughs were generated. While several of the gags are indeed pretty raunchy, they’re never over-the-top vulgar or (too) tasteless.

            The film attempts to shirk rom-com conventions by presenting audiences with a central couple whose relationship is not meant to be really compelling, and that’s a gamble that doesn’t fully pay off. Rafe Spall and Rose Byrne don’t generate a lot of chemistry and aren’t all that likeable, but then again that might be the point. That’s not to say they don’t put in good performances – Spall in particular appears to relish the chance to goof off with some drunken dancing. Once Chloe and Guy enter the scene, it becomes harder to root for Nat and Josh to stay together, which means Anna Faris and Simon Baker do their jobs. The film’s third act takes a dip into more dramatic territory, but Mazer always keep an eye on the laughs, so there are no jarring tonal shifts. The film also gets a little cluttered with supporting characters and side gags at times.

            I Give It a Year’s biggest strength is that it manages to strike a decent balance between the cynical humour, relationship drama and big comedic set-pieces. It’s definitely on the acerbic side, but the British film manages to retain a small amount of charm and while it borders on mean, it’s never alienating. Above all, it does draw out the laughs.

SUMMARY: A contemporary look at early married life dosed with the comedic stylings of Borat’s partner in crime – it works for those who have been jaded by mawkish rom-coms and could do with a little edge in their “chick flick”.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong

           

Life of Pi

For F*** Magazine

LIFE OF PI

Director: Ang Lee
Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall
Genre: Adventure, Drama
Run Time: 127 mins
Opens: 29 November 2012
Rating: PG - Some Frightening Scenes

There’s no undertaking quite like filming the “unfilmable”, and director Ang Lee and co. have bravely stepped up to the plate with this adaptation of Yann Martel’s Man Booker Prize-winning novel Life of Pi. Many deemed translating the much-loved story to the big screen an impossible task, and it has been a long road to fruition – but the glorious end result probably makes it all worthwhile.

As a framing device, we have an author (Rafe Spall) visiting Piscene Molitor “Pi” Patel (Khan), who sets the stage with some backstory, including his relationship with his parents, his encounters with various faiths and the origins of his peculiar name. Then, he recounts for the writer a life-changing event: his getting stranded at sea for 227 days on a lifeboat alongside a Bengal Tiger named Richard Parker. 16-year-old Pi (Sharma) must learn to survive not only the harshness of the open ocean, but a hungry big cat too, as he embarks on an adventure that is as much spiritual and emotional as it is physical.



Life of Pi has been described as a “spiritual odyssey”, a coming-of-age film of “magical realism” dealing with faith and philosophical themes. Now, all this makes it sound lofty and inaccessible and may turn off many a viewer. It’s a good thing then that Lee has succeeded in making a deep, complex film very accessible and appealing. The first part of the film, in which an adult Pi speaks about his past, draws the viewer into a somewhat heightened, fantastical world, preparing them for the adventure ahead.

While Life of Pi isn’t one of those head-scratchingly confusing arthouse films, it’s also as far from your typical blockbuster as you can get – it’s not a movie for the particularly impatient, and is one of those “experiential”-type films that you need to just soak in. One could also describe Life of Pi as sort of a surrealistic buddy road trip movie – like in every such film; there are two characters on a journey, whose relationship is essential to the plot. It’s just that instead of, say, two stoners in a beat-up old car; it’s a boy and a Bengal tiger in a lifeboat. Now, before you begin groaning, let it be known that Lee’s famous visual flair is in full force here: this is probably the most-gorgeous looking film of the year and a breathtaking technical achievement in every regard. From a harrowing shipwreck to a whale leaping out of plankton-illuminated waters, it’s practically a parade of one awe-inspiring image after the other.



The framing device of an adult Pi telling his story to the writer is similar to that used in Titanic, and Spall and Khan put in commendable supporting performances, their relatively mundane meeting providing contrast to the larger-than-life odyssey that forms most of the movie. For the bulk of the film however, Pi is played by first-time actor Sharma, who beat out 3,000 other hopefuls for the part. He very nearly missed out too, as he wasn’t initially interested in auditioning, having tagged along for his younger brother’s audition. He gamely takes on the Herculean task of carrying a huge film (almost) all by his lonesome, something which would be daunting to any actor, let alone one with no prior film experience. Furthermore, Sharma spends most of the film acting opposite nothing, which isn’t an easy thing to do.

You probably won’t realise he is acting against nothing though, because of how incredibly lifelike Richard Parker the tiger and the other animals in the film look. Visual effects supervisor Bill Westenhofer of Rhythm and Hues Studios and his team have created a digital tiger that captures all the nuances of the real thing, every snarl, crouch and lunge feeling suitably animalistic and not plasticky or artificial as it well could have been. Extensive visual effects work was also used to make it look convincingly like Pi and Richard Parker were out on the open ocean, when in reality the film was shot in several water tanks in an abandoned airport in Taichung, Taiwan. Many films have come under fire for an overuse of computer-generated imagery, but along comes this film that serves as a perfect example for how the technology can be used as an effective storytelling tool.



3D has also been the target of similar accusations, and not without reason. However, Lee’s use of stereoscopic filmmaking is markedly artful and in many places adds to the otherworldly feel of Pi and Richard Parker’s sea voyage. There’s even a moment where the tiger lunges out of the screen – it could be seen as gimmicky, but is actually quite fun. Shooting the film in 3D was one of many elements that made Life of Pi a really difficult film to put together – animals, water, “unfilmable” source material and 3D on top of all of that?

Lee has admitted that this was the toughest film he’s had to work on, but he and the cast and crew of Life of Pi can rest assured that they’ve been amply rewarded with something of a masterpiece. If there’s any major thing this reviewer didn’t quite enjoy of the film, it would be the film’s attempt to incorporate the “twist ending” of the book, which seems to slightly undermine everything which came before. In the end, however, this is that rare movie which strikes a balance between the epic and the intimate, pure and refined in its storytelling – what movies are meant to be.

SUMMARY: It is, indeed, a wonderful Life – and certainly deserving of more than 3.142 stars.

RATING: 4 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong