Brooklyn

For F*** Magazine

BROOKLYN 

Director : John Crowley
Cast : Saoirse Ronan, Domhnall Gleeson, Emory Cohen, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters
Genre : Drama
Run Time : 1 hr 52 mins
Opens : 18 February 2016
Rating : NC-16 (Sexual Scene)

One heart is torn between two lands in this historical romance. Said heart belongs to Eilis Lacey (Ronan), a young woman from the small Irish town of Enniscorthy. Eilis’ older sister Rose (Glascott) arranges for Eilis to go to Brooklyn in search of better prospects, Eilis leaving Rose and their mother (Jane Brennan) behind. Father Flood (Broadbent), a priest active in the Irish community in Brooklyn, arranges for Eilis to stay in a boarding house run by the landlady Madge Kehoe (Walters). Father Flood also enrols Eilis in bookkeeping classes at a night school. Eilis meets and soon falls in love with Tony Fiorello (Cohen), a plumber from an Italian family. When Eilis returns to Ireland after a family emergency, she begins spending time with eligible bachelor Jim Farrell (Gleeson), a mutual acquaintance of Eilis’ best friend Nancy (Eileen O’Higgins). The small Enniscorthy community, unaware that Eilis is already in a relationship with an American boy, expects her and Jim to end up together. Eilis begins to re-evaluate the future she has planned, feeling the pull of home and of the promise of a bright future in Brooklyn.

            Brooklyn is based on the novel of the same name by Irish author Colm Tóibín, adapted for the screen by Nick Hornby. This is not a particularly grand story, but the intimacy and honesty of the tale draws one in. Director John Crowley has crafted a drama that is earnest and wonderfully devoid of cynicism. It’s a throwback to a bygone era without being self-conscious and it captures the period in eminently relatable fashion. While Eilis is meant to represent any number of young Irish girls stepping across the pond to forge new lives in America, the story doesn’t sacrifice the character’s individuality in the process. Its portrayal of the immigrant experience is quietly stirring and thoughtful rather than overtly political. Tonally, Brooklyn hits all the right marks to make a maximum impact: there’s a pervading melancholy that achingly conveys what it feels like to be homesick, but the film never becomes dreary and Hornby’s script contains well-placed moments of wit and humour.

            Ronan reminds us yet again why she’s among the finest performers of her generation, Brooklyn capitalising on her talents in the best way possible – she gets to use her delightful natural Irish brogue, for one. The blend of impish charm, raw vulnerability and emotional depth that Ronan brings to the role of Eilis is ever so appealing. The audience is in her corner from minute one and it is satisfying to see the initially tremulous Eilis’ confidence gradually increase as she becomes accustomed to her new life in Brooklyn. As an Irish-American herself, Ronan says she identifies strongly with Eilis’ journey. With this role, Ronan has become the second-youngest actress to be nominated for two Oscars. One hopes that many more projects like Brooklyn find their way to her.

The film’s portrayal of young love is clear-eyed and just sentimental enough, Cohen endearingly awkward and just sweet as can be as Eilis’ suitor Tony. The “aww shucks” factor he brings to the part comes off as genuine and wistfully romantic without straying into sappiness. We’re cheering for Eilis and Tony to stay together, so Gleeson has an uphill battle in making Jim seem like anything more than a nuisance. His measured dignity ensures there is an actual conflict as to who Eilis ends up with. Walters and Broadbent are perfectly cast as the stern, traditional landlady and the kindly priest respectively. Eilis’ housemates are sometimes catty, but the girls do form a certain camaraderie. A scene in which two of them teach Eilis how to twirl spaghetti without making a mess, in preparation for Eilis’ visit to Tony’s house for dinner, is amusing and heartfelt.

            Brooklyn is comprised of several conventional narrative elements, but it ends up being far more than the sum of its parts. This is a relatively simple story that is absolutely captivating, a romance that is sweet but not cloying, a drama that is heart-rending yet not manipulative. The specificities of the setting and the care taken in realising the 50s Brooklyn and Enniscorthy locales imbue the movie with texture and authenticity. It’s old-fashioned but steers clear of stifling stodginess and is resonant even if one doesn’t have a personal connection to the specific culture and period depicted. Lyrical, engaging and sincere, Brooklyn is a work of disarming beauty.

Summary: Personal and richly humane, Brooklyn is a small tale gracefully told, carried by a glowing, transcendent performance from Saoirse Ronan.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5 Stars

Jedd Jong 

How I Live Now

For F*** Magazine

HOW I LIVE NOW 

Director: Kevin Macdonald
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, George MacKay, Tom Holland, Anna Chancellor, Harley Bird, Corey Johnson
Genre: Action, Drama, Thriller
Run Time: 101 mins
Opens: M18 (Sexual Scene)
Rating: 23 January 2014

The coming of age movie: it’s a genre that won’t go out of style. Anyone from any generation can relate to the concept of being post-pubescent, casting aside the carefree whims of childhood and “finding oneself”; wrestling with newfound thoughts and emotions, many attributable to the onset of hormones. Based on Meg Rosoff’s acclaimed young-adult novel of the same name, How I Live Now presents a coming-of-age tale of a different stripe, unfolding against the backdrop of a modern-day world war.

Elizabeth (Ronan) – or Daisy, as she insists on being called – is a morose, bratty New York teenager sent by her father to spend the summer in the English countryside. Playing host to Daisy is her Aunt Penn (Chancellor), sister of Daisy’s late mother. An academic expert on extremism and incredibly busy given the tense political climate around the world, Aunt Penn is called away on official business. So, Daisy is left with her cousins Isaac (Holland), Eddie (MacKay) and Piper (Bird). Though frosty and unwilling to participate at first, Daisy eventually settles into life away from the city. She also enters into a taboo romantic relationship with Eddie, but their blossoming romance is violently interrupted by the reality of an enemy occupation of the United Kingdom and the young lovers are torn apart. Daisy goes on the run with Piper, whom she has to care for, facing a variety of threats in the hopes of being eventually reunited with Eddie.



Young-adult novel adaptations have become attractive prospects to studio execs but are more often than not risky endeavours too. In 2013, The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones and Beautiful Creatures were critical and commercial duds. How I Live Now is atypical among such movies, the British production bearing an arthouse/indie flavour. The book it’s based on is not the first in a series of seven; there’s just one book. Lovingly photographed by cinematographer Franz Lustig, this is far from a wannabe Twilight or Hunger Games, though it has been mis-categorised as such. But this is not to say that it stands head and shoulders above its peers as some kind of picture of sophistication.

Director Kevin Macdonald, of The Last King of Scotland and State of Play fame, does a masterful job of quietly hinting at the larger world in which this intimate story takes place. When Daisy arrives at the airport, we glimpse the increased presence of uniformed soldiers and the stepped-up security measures. Chinook helicopters fly past in the background. The threat remains unnamed and unspecified, a looming, faceless terror. Macdonald draws on his own childhood summers spent in the countryside for his portrait of a carefree idyll bathed in soft sunlight, so when the movie enters “wartime mode”, the transition is effectively jarring.



However, one gets the feeling that a far more interesting story could have been told given this rich, thought-provoking backdrop. The film meanders and ambles, time spent with the main characters seeming more like time wasted than anything else. Daisy is sulky, pouty and insufferable, an amalgamation of teenage traits, utterly unlikeable and difficult to sympathise with. At some points in the film, the voices in her head are audible to the viewer, a cacophonous buzz of self-loathing and platitudes gleaned from teen magazine self-help articles. We’re not going to pretend like we were all angels at that age, but Daisy is not an easy protagonist to tolerate, let alone root for. We imagine Kristen Stewart is like this in her everyday life.

It’s at least a little of a good thing, then, that it’s Saoirse Ronan and not Bella Sulkypants in the part. Macdonald called his leading lady “the Meryl Streep of her generation” and that isn’t necessarily hyperbole. Ronan is without her Irish brogue, speaking instead with a convincing American accent. She makes the most of the part and tries to imbue Daisy with something beneath the “like, whatever” exterior. Tom Holland, who was very impressive in tsunami drama The Impossible, is good here too as the 14-year-old who’s still very much a little boy, laughing and playing pranks and still managing to have a good time in spite of the bleak situation that surrounds him. Harley Bird is as chipper as her name (and her character’s name, “Piper”) suggests, but she does sometimes come off as the annoying tag-along kid.



Now, to address the elephant in the room: Daisy romances her first cousin. The term itself isn’t spoken, but there is a “YOLO!” undercurrent beneath most of the film: “We’re young and you only live once, so screw the rules!” MacKay’s Eddie is a quiet, enigmatic animal-whisperer who sweeps Daisy off her feet and teaches her to break free of her neurotic headspace. Young people do impulsive things, yes, but in the midst of this life-or-death ordeal one can’t help but yell at the screen “Guys, you’re not thinking this through!” More often than not, infatuation clouds Daisy’s judgment and her refusal to try and comprehend the bigger picture – that of the impending Third freaking World War – makes it hard to get into How I Live Now.

SUMMARY: It’s sufficiently different from every other teen romance and there’s an intriguing, brutal and sometimes frighteningly realistic backdrop to the proceedings, but its miserable lead character and the unmined potential of the premise mean How I Live Now has trouble sticking.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5 Stars

Jedd Jong

Interview with Kevin Macdonald, director of How I Live Now

As published in Issue #48/49 of F*** Magazine

TO LIVE AND LOVE IN THE NOW

Director Kevin Macdonald chats exclusively with F*** about his film adaptation of the young-adult novel How I Live Now.

By Jedd Jong

Scottish director and documentary filmmaker Kevin Macdonald has stepped into the realm of movies based on young adult novels with How I Live Now, adapted from Meg Rosoff’s acclaimed novel. The director won an Academy Award for One Day in September, a documentary film about the massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He has gone on to make films about musicians, such as Being Mick and Marley, as well as Touching the Void, about an ill-fated mountaineering expedition in the Andes.

Macdonald is also a prolific director of narrative features, his film The Last King of Scotland earning lead actor Forest Whitaker a Best Actor Oscar for playing Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Macdonald then directed State of Play, adapted from the British television series of the same name and starring Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren. The historical drama The Eagle, starring Channing Tatum as a Roman centurion and based on Rosemary Sutcliffe’s novel The Eagle of the Ninth, followed.

Macdonald speaks to F*** over the phone about his latest film, touching on what sets it apart from most movies set during an apocalyptic war scenario, the somewhat controversial love story between two cousins, talented leading lady Saoirse Ronan and some uncooperative animal actors.

F***: What drew you to Meg Rosoff’s book and how did you and the screenwriters decide what to keep and what to excise?

Kevin Macdonald: I was sent the book by the producer and just thought that it was a really beautiful piece of writing. I think sometimes, people are very dismissive of young adult novels and writing, but actually, they can explore more interesting, more daring, more complex themes than a lot of supposedly adult writing. I thought it was very original and you could see a very original kind of “teen movie”, I guess, being made out of it.

Whenever you adapt a book, you’re always having to…shorten, was the main thing. If you make a 300 page book into a film without removing anything, it would be five hours long. That’s one of the things you have to do, but also you have to give it a structure which will work more in film. And then you also have to find ways of making things that are interior, especially in this book where a lot of the book is written in interior monologue, to find ways of making the thoughts that people have and making them exterior. That means changing quite a lot, and I think in this instance we also changed things because we cast actors who were slightly older than the characters in the book. And that meant, for instance, in the book there was an older brother and that older brother was about 17, but when we cast a 17 or 18 year old in the lead role, there was no point in having an older brother so we lost the older brother. So those things happen inevitably as you transfer something from page to screen. But I think also the author, Meg Rosoff, very much likes the film and feels that it’s a very faithful adaptation in that it’s faithful to the spirit of the book. There’s always an interpretation of course, there’s always the director’s interpretation.

There’ve been some murmurs in response to the aspect of a coming of age love story between two first cousins. Was there any conversation about not making Edmond and Daisy cousins in adapting the book, or did you feel that that would have betrayed the essence of the story?

I think that would have betrayed the truth of the book, and I think it’s one of the things that makes the book interesting. It’s a little bit shocking, it’s a little bit daring, it’s a bit taboo-breaking, but when you’re a teenager, those are the sort of things you think about. You may not be acting on them, but you’re thinking “what are these rules, what do these rules mean? What am I allowed to do, what am I not allowed to do?”

How did you reconcile the coming-of-age drama aspect of the film with that of the oncoming war?

I think that the war is part of Daisy’s coming of age. Through the war, she has to learn to survive on her own, she has to learn to evaluate what is important in life and what’s not important in life and she has to learn to look after another human being, she looks after the little girl, Piper. And I always saw the story as being like a fairytale. It’s a modern-day fairytale, and in fairytales, often rather terrible things can happen: people have their fingers cut off…

Like a Grimm kind of thing.

Yes, exactly. And I think there’s something of that about this story.

Saoirse Ronan has a good American accent in the film, but did you consider casting an American actress for the part?

I very much did. I looked for a long time in America and I had a casting director there who saw thousands of girls. But I couldn’t find anybody who I was convinced by as an actor, who felt like they had the necessary edge; sense of rebelliousness, or just the plain talent. And then I read Saoirse and she was so fantastic as an actor and her American accent is so strong, she’s played an American many times before, that I thought there was no doubt that I had to cast her. I think she’s the finest young actor of her generation.

There’s the old Hollywood adage “never work with children and animals”; you’ve had to work with both for How I Live Now. What was that like?

(Laughs) The animals were much harder to work with than the children. I think for the first two weeks of filming, practically every day, we had different animals: we had cats, dogs, sheep, cows, a goat, a hawk…you know and there’s probably other ones that I can’t remember. They don’t always do…one thing I can tell you for sure is the goats don’t always do what you tell them. The children don’t always do what you ask them either, but they also then give you some very interesting things that you’re not expecting. I tried to create an atmosphere of freedom on the set so that the children could just enjoy themselves and experiment and improvise, instead of feeling they always had to stick to “stand here, do this, do that” and I think the children created a wonderful atmosphere for all the crew on the film. Nobody can be grumpy or unpleasant when you’ve got such lovely young people around on set. It was a very happy set and we all enjoyed ourselves a lot; it was like a little family in the countryside.

To tie into that a little, you grew up in the countryside and it’s interesting that a good portion of the film is set on a farm. Did you draw on your experience as a child?

I think I drew on my experiences growing up in the countryside and the freedom of my summer holidays and other holidays there where in the 1970s, when I was growing up, you would be allowed to just roam about all day and go walking and maybe meet some friends and go for miles and miles and nobody thought anything of it. I think these days, parents are a little bit more cautious, but I can remember being 8 or 9 and just being gone every day, going fishing, going swimming in the rivers, going walking, discovering caves, that kind of thing. I wanted to capture some of that feeling of childhood freedom in a pastoral (setting) in the movie. A lot of the movie is about the magic of the English countryside, I suppose.

In an interview with The Independent, you described the film as possibly being “too dark for America”: could you elaborate on that?

Well, I suppose I just meant that it’s a movie which shows the consequences of violence, real violence. It doesn’t really show violence, it’s not a violent film, and it’s not a dark film in respect to, I think, a lot of films that come out of America. But it does suggest and you see the consequences of some really horrible things, and what’s horrible that happens is taken very seriously in the film. It’s not had the edges rubbed off and it’s not “fantasy violence” in that way, as in a lot of Hollywood films. So, you have to confront a little bit of real life in the movie, and sometimes American audiences find that a bit hard.

It’s not a trivial or frivolous sort of film and shows the consequences of war and doesn’t compromise in that way?

No, exactly, and I think some people have said “are teenagers ready to see that kind of thing?” and exactly, they are. I think when people are that age, you know, between 13 and 21 or whatever, certainly from my experience and my friends, that’s when you’re asking big questions about life and death and violence and peace, and you are ready to see those things and to talk about them and think about them, I think much more so than adults are. That’s why teenagers can sometimes be very dark in their imagining.

Which scene in the film was, technically-speaking, the most difficult to put together?

Gosh, the most difficult to put together…well, probably the scene of Daisy and Piper coming across the crashed airplane and walking through this crashed airplane, and here we see the tail of an airplane in the woods. That was a big scene for us to put together in terms of the logistics of getting a plane wreck and putting it in the woods, decorating it to look wrecked. There wasn’t anything hugely, hugely complex in the film. One of the things that’s interesting about the movie is that there’s been so many films about “the end of the world” or about the apocalypse of one sort of another, but almost always…always, those films take place in the city and there’s destruction of big tower blocks and cars being thrown around. This film is about the apocalypse happening in the countryside, and you’re not going to see those big, action set pieces. You’re going to see some of the consequences of them: you see drive-pasts of big crashes of cars after they’ve happened, or you see bodies of people who’ve been killed, but you don’t see the battles. I think that obviously makes it easier to shoot, but it also makes it spookier and creepier because you’re always expecting that around the corner, you will find the perpetrators, the terrorists or whatever because it’s always more scary to suggest things than to see them head-on.

Would you be interested in making this film that you’ve described, the larger-scale film about the war, in a different project?

No, no. Because, as I said, the whole thing that’s interesting to me about this story is that it’s not one of those huge-scale action movies. Then it just becomes another movie about destruction and throwing cars up in the air and explosions, which we’ve all seen so many hundreds of times. It’s much more spooky and much more interesting and original to see the consequences of a war like this on people living in the countryside, on children who don’t really know what’s happening, don’t even know what’s happening, and the ambiguity is much more frightening and much more effective than definitely knowing.

Would I be correct to say the film is interesting in that it is not spectacle-driven?

Yeah, I think it’s full of beautiful shots and beautiful imagery and frightening set pieces, it is imagery-driven, but it’s not driven by the usual clichés of American Hollywood action movies, that you have to see everything happening in order to find it exciting, you have to see a jumbo jet crashing, whereas in our film you see what happens a week later, they stumble upon that. So you’re not seeing the moments of the action happening, you’re seeing what the consequences of that are. Or you hearing it off-screen or you’re seeing it out of the corner of your eye. And I think that’s to me, much more interesting and much more original.

Saoirse has accomplished a lot at a very young age. Speaking as her director on this film, where do you think her career will take her next?

I think that she has an enormously bright career. As I said earlier, I think she’s the best young actor out there. I don’t think anyone can equal her and she’s capable, as she’s shown in this film, of doing romantic parts, she’s capable of doing action parts, so she’s the Meryl Streep of her generation I think.

Can you speak about the chemistry between Saoirse and George McKay on set?

Yeah, they had really great chemistry and that’s obviously vitally important when you’re making a love story, especially a love story during which the two leads spend a lot of time apart, they’re separated halfway through the film but you’ve got to believe that she’s in love with him and wants to get back with him, and if you don’t, then obviously the film doesn’t work so well.

Justin and the Knights of Valour

For F*** Magazine

JUSTIN AND THE KNIGHTS OF VALOUR

Director: Manuel Sicilia
Cast: Antonio Banderas, Freddie Highmore, Saoirse Ronan, Mark Strong, Olivia Williams, Rupert Everett, Julie Walters, Alfred Molina, Charles Dance, Michael Culkin, James Cosmo, Barry Humphries, David Walliams
Genre: Animation
Run Time: 90 mins
Rating: PG
Opens: 14 November 2013

       

     Being the knight in shining armour who will fight for the fair maiden’s honour before taking her to a “castle far away” was cheesy when Peter Cetera sang about it in 1986, and it’s only cheesier now. Soft, sanitized and romanticised medieval fantasy has since been usurped by the likes of Game of Thrones, or has had the mickey taken out of it with comedies like The Princess Bride. Spanish animated film Justin and the Knights of Valour does nothing to make old-timey fantasy adventure cool again.

            Justin (Highmore) dreams of taking up the sword as a knight like his grandfather, the legendary Sir Roland. Of course, Justin’s father Reginald (Molina), chief lawmaker of the land, is adamant that Justin go to law school instead. Encouraged by his kindly grandmother (Walters), Justin heads off to an abbey to train under elderly warrior-monks Blucher (Cosmo), Legantir (Dance) and Braulio (Humphries). He intends on winning the hand of the vapid Princess Lara (Egerton), but is eventually drawn to feisty barmaid Talia (Ronan) of the Broken Eagle Inn. The treacherous disgraced knight Heraclio (Strong) plans to usurp the throne, with flamboyant right-hand man Sota (Everett) by his side. The charlatan Sir Clorex (Banderas), a self-absorbed palace cleaner who poses as a knight, gets mixed up in all this too.

            Justin and the Knights of Valour feels like a third-rate knock-off animated flick that would have been released in the mid to late 90s in order to ride on the Disney renaissance wave and is reminiscent of Quest for Camelot, The Swan Princess and its ilk. If it were any more formulaic, you could bottle it, slap a label on it and put it on a supermarket shelf. The young protagonist who goes against the desires of his parental unit to forge his own path and come of age, the figure from his family past that he has to confront, the wise and somewhat crusty old mentors who take him under their wing, the spirited lass who’s a better companion for him than the spoilt princess….check, check, check and – yawn – check.

            Animation is a medium where it’s particularly obvious when something isn’t of a high level of quality, since every last thing on screen has to be drawn or otherwise animated from the ground up. You can’t go film in the historic train station to add production value with a cartoon. This reviewer will admit that the animation in Justin and the Knights of Valour isn’t quite as bad as he expected – there’s some decent fluid simulation going on – but it’s still bad. We understand it isn’t quite fair to stack Kandor Graphics against, say, Pixar, but there’s such an obvious gap in quality that it’s almost embarrassing.

            There are many poorly-made animated films that somehow rack up an impressive cast, and this film is an example of that to a degree. The voice mix seems to lack a refinement and sticks out more than it should. Freddie Highmore sleep-talks his way through the film, audibly disinterested in the material. Mark Strong’s talents are entirely wasted as an unmemorable villain and Rupert Everett’s performance is so limp-wristed and camp, tents almost sprout up around his character. Antonio Banderas (who also produced this) was far better as Puss in Boots than as the Gaston-esque Clorex. David Walliams is amusing but borders on unbearable as the manic comic relief medium with a split personality. At least Saoirse Ronan and her wonderful Irish brogue seem to be having fun.

“It’s a kids’ film” is not an excuse for bad filmmaking. Justin and the Knights of Valour regurgitates a bog-standard “hero’s journey” plot, combines it with obvious, pratfall-heavy gag-based humour and unengaging animation for a wholly mediocre end result. Alright, the crocodile with the mechanical wings that the monks try and pass for a dragon is funny.

SUMMARY: Persistently uninspired and will be a chore for any parent to sit through. Our sympathies.

RATING: 2 out of 5 Stars

Jedd Jong