The Power of the Dog

This movie, a dramatisation of a novel by Thomas Savage, is already receiving a number of award nominations. For me it's an art film, by which I mean that it's more than just a visual narrative; it embraces various art forms. From amazing Montana landscapes to a modernistic score performed by what seems to be a string quartet with occasional piano, with authentic 1930s paraphernalia such as motor cars, clearly numbered acts and a very wide screen, the movie begins with an impressive cattle drive which defines the central location of the story.

The title is taken from Psalm 22:20: “Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog.” Director Jane Campion (of Top of the Lake) has said "The power of the dog is all those urges, all those deep, uncontrollable urges that can come and destroy us". It also felt to me to have a sense of the "black dog" of depression.

I mulled over how much to tell of the whole story or to avoid spoilers for you. I have tried to follow a middle path, to tell enough to encourage you to watch the movie but not to make it a fruitless exercise. I might not succeed so you may want to watch it before reading further.

Phil and George Burbank own a ranch and the film centres on their relationship. They are shown as very different siblings; Phil is the practical, physical rancher and George the manager. They don't really much like each other. Both are lonely but deal with that differently: Phil relishes being on his own whereas George seeks to alleviate his loneliness by marrying local inn owner Rose, whom Phil takes an instant dislike to and calls a "suicide widow". There's a scene where George says to Rose "how nice it is not to be alone". Rose has a son Peter who is mocked by Phil and the ranch hands for his effeminate ways.

These are the four characters whose journeys we follow. There are hidden depths to Phil and Peter; eventually Phil comes to see great worth in the young boy and helps him develop ranchers' skills, particularly when he discovers that Peter saw his father hang himself and now his mother is deteriorating into alcoholism. Peter responds, growing surprisingly self confident and determined.

George and Rose are frankly less interesting and become peripheral to the narrative.

Phil himself has hidden depths. In one scene the Governor, visiting the ranch, reveals Phil was "Phi Beta Kappa in Classics at Yale". This is my main reservation about the film: none of Phil's background is explored or explained - how did this educated and cultured man end up as a cattle herder? - and I wanted there to be more to this character, less of it hidden. He helps Peter to grow but doesn't do so himself.

In Top of the Lake, Campion has a clear feminine focus, so strong that "men are bad, women good" pretty much sums up the theme. Here she hints at effeminate male sexuality with some homoerotic scenes and suggestions - but no more than that, it's subtle suggestion, nothing more. I'm not sure it adds anything to the film but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a second reservation for me.

My final issue is that the strong, wide visuals and excellent musical score really mean that I wished I had seen it in the cinema to get the full experience. This may be a reservation about my TV rather than the film. Overall I believe this a worthwhile film, it's pace is near perfect, the acting is excellent and the characters well-defined and well contrasted. If you watch it, let me know whether your thoughts are different from mine.

Nicknames and a Quiz

I've written before about the esoteric names of football clubs - the Go Ahead Eagles and the Stuttgarter Kickers. But today is about nicknames. I don't know how or by whom these names came into being but Arsenal (originally Woolwich Arsenal) are the Gunners, Wycombe (home of the Windsor chair) Wanderers are the Chair Boys, Ipswich (home of Ransomes) Town the Tractor Boys.

I'm not sure whether their womens' teams are the Chair Girls and the Tractor Girls [Ed: actually the latter: Yes]; sounds like a good name for a movie. According to CNN, a 20-year-old woman nicknamed "Chair Girl" was filmed hurling a chair onto a freeway from the balcony of a high-rise building in downtown Toronto. Someone called Patrick Walsh has an album called Tractor Girls. In the interests of rigour, I got my researcher to listen to track 2 Girls With Tractors; he said it sounds like every other country and western song that's ever been written.

Moving on, my interest in nicknames has been re-stimulated by watching the (mens) African Cup of Nations. Today was Nigeria (the Super Eagles) vs Egypt (the Pharaohs). Yesterday I watched Morocco (the Lions de l'Atlas - Atlas Lions) vs Ghana (the Black Stars).

By and large the names of animals predominate. I challenge my readers to guess which countries are represented by (NO CHEATING):

• the Desert Foxes
• the Eagles of Carthage
• the Lions of Teranga
• the Falcons of Jediane
• the Elephants
• the Lions of Chinguetti
• the Scorpions
• the Blue Sharks

That morphed into a Geography quiz I think. Answers in two days' time. I'm expecting a plethora of 100% correct answers from my erudite audience.

I'm looking forward to the commentators' attempts when Comoros (wherever that is) play: they are The Coelacanths.

Frankly these are all deeply unoriginal, if authentic. Much better, the Ethiopian team is known as the Walias, which are "on the sweeter side of Ethiopian beers with tones of fruits and honey. It’s very light and golden in colour and retains its head much better than some of its competitors" according to youngpioneertours.com I'll have one of those please!

I know, it's a brand name. But so are Red Bull Salzburg and Bayer Leverkusen. 

With whom are we most angry?

Maybe contemptuous of, rather than angry with ...

Novax Djokovic?

The Serbian Government?

Boris and Carrie?

His Royal Humbug who marched his troops up to the top of the hill?

The inventor of the Platinum Pudding idea?

I'm going for Martin Reynolds, the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister. His crime? Being stingy. "Bring your own booze"? What kind of party host does that? A mean one, that's who.

And no, that's not a misprint, Novax.

More Movie Notes

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is an entertaining dramatisation of the events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Protesters attempted to storm the convention centre to protest the Vietnam War and, in particular, Hubert Humphrey's apparent support for - or at least non-opposition to - the war. Those on trial in September 1969 were prominent activists and, although they were all accused of conspiracy, they were mostly unconnected and just met in the protests. There were originally eight defendants but one, Bobby Seale the co-leader of the Black Panthers, was eventually separated from the others - in the movie by a declaration of mistrial after several highly amusing altercations between Seale and the judge.

Aaron Sorkin paints each of the defendants in bright dramatic colours: Sasha Baron Cohen is a highly intelligent but crazy Abbie Hoffman, Jeremy Strong (aka Kendall Roy in Succession) is Jerry Rubin; they are founding members of the Youth International Party, known as Yippies, dedicated to revolution. They engage in student level stunts, constantly disrupting the trial and arguing that it's a political trial. In contrast Eddie Redmayne is the straight man of the group, a teacher and co-founder of Students for a Democratic Society, who argues for a non-violent, non-confrontational presentation of their defence, a stance which lessens as Frank Langella's Judge Hoffman behaves increasingly erratically and antagonistically towards them.

Mark Rylance does his droll thing as their lawyer and the film is well worth a watch, particularly for fans of Sorkin's writing. The energy never fades and there is a typical Sorkin set piece speech to round it all off.

Inside Man is a heist movie from 2006, mostly straightforward in its use of a hostage negotiator (Denzil Washington) and his interaction with the leader of the robbers (Clive Owen). There's a sub-plot involving Jodie Foster and Christoper Plummer which feels contrived but turns out to be a  crucial part of the plot. So far so ordinary. What intrigued me, however, were the tactical devices used by the robbers.

There is a clever robber leader, who has thought of all possibilities and tactics, one of which is to have the hostages wear clothing and face masks identical to those of the robbers, so as to allow the robbers to escape by exiting with the hostages. Sound familiar? If you've seen Money Heist, it will be. No Dali masks here but otherwise it's a rip-off. Feels like obvious plagiarism which, given this film is from 2006 and Money Heist from 2017, makes me a little less enthralled by the latter. There's even a common musical device: We know that Money Heist uses Bella Ciao as a kind of leitmotif; Inside Man does a similar thing with the Bollywood love song Chaiyya Chaiyya, the latter making no sense whereas Bella Ciao at least represents anti-capitalist protest. Putting aside the disturbing plagiarism, I would class this movie as a mildly entertaining and undemanding couple of hours' watch. 

Fracture pits Anthony Hopkins against Ryan Gosling in a courtroom drama. I guess you couldn't find two actors more unalike in terms of their usual roles. Hopkins, in Hannibal Lecter mood, is some kind of super-genius engineer who discovers his wife is having an affair with a police detective. He's clever enough to plot out the perfect crime, shoots her and confesses. Gosling plays a laconic, smug La La Land Assistant District Attorney who is plotting a lucrative move to the private sector but has time before that happens to take on this final "open and shut" case, given the confession. Things don't turn out quite like that, as you may guess, and he is eventually intrigued by the challenge of taking down his clever antagonist.

There's a strong musical element in the film. On occasions - particularly in the opening seven minute sequence with no dialogue - it feels like a symphonic exposition. Sometimes a bit distracting. There are clever references to the movie's title in the opening titles  

but it's not at all clear to me what Fracture means in the context of the plot. Overall it's the kind of film which depends on excellent chemistry between the two leads and they provide that. A good thriller.

Above Suspicion is a crime thriller set in a run-down Kentucky town and based on a true story. The dark local culture contrasts with the arrival of a clean cut rookie FBI agent and he recruits a local young unmarried mother, desperate to escape her past and present circumstances, as an informer. It is fairly mundane but does have Emilia Clarke (aka the Mother of Dragons) in a gritty role.

Four movies in four days? I know, but there was a distinct lack of TV football. 

Shot In The Dark Answers

Brief answers. For more detail, buy the game from @ShotintheDarkGames (FB) shotinthedarkgame.co.uk

Q1. How many Olympic-sized swimming pools can be filled with the beer that is consumed on the UK over the Christmas period? 57

Q2. How many medium-sized baubles are needed to decorate an average six foot Christmas tree? 81

Q3. How much would it have cost to buy 100g of gold, frankincense and myrrh on Christmas Day 2019? £3,733

Q4. In 2019, what was the world record for eating the most Brussels sprouts in 60 seconds? 33

Q5. In Greenland, what Christmas delicacy is supposed to taste like fresh coconut:

• A. blubber wrapped in whale skin A
• B. eels cooked in milk
• C. polar bear tongue OR
• D. boiled penguin beak? 

Q6. What is the length of the biggest Christmas cracker ever made? 63.1 metres

Q7. In what year was the first Christmas tree decorated and by whom? 1536 by Martin Luther

Q8. In the 1940s what was most commonly used as fake snow in films? Cornflakes painted white

Q9. On what date does the average Brit eat their first mince pie of the year? 2 December

Q10. During a Christmas feast hosted by King Richard II of England in 1377, how many sheep and oxen were consumed in total? 328

Let me know your score!

Being The Ricardos

This movie is a lemon. Lemons are not edible fruits; they exist only to add zest to other food. No-one eats a lemon on its own. The film is a dud; something which has no meaning or point. It describes a week in the life of the making of an episode of the 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy, starring Lucille Ball and her real life husband Desi Arnaz.

The original was a gentle, charming comedy of a type which would make no-one laugh today. So why regurgitate its memory and focus on the mechanics of making an episode? It's reasonable to suppose that there is something more to this: a tragic element, a remarkable difference to this episode rather than any of the other 179; the lemon must be the seasoning for something. But no, it just trundles along, the only hint of drama being the fact that it was during the making of this episode that Ball was "outed" as a Communist - the era of McCarthyism in the United States. If this was at the forefront of the movie, making it about the horrors of that period, there might have been a point to it. But no, it's just a bit of colour to support the dull essence of the "Monday read through, Tuesday rewrites, Wednesday first rehearsals", etc.

Nicole Kidman as Lucy and Javier Bardem as Desi deliver Aaron Sorkin's rapid fire script as best they can and it just feels like Amazon Studios thought that the combination of those three would be enough to disguise the paucity of the story. It isn't. In many ways it feels like a stage play, which seems alien to Sorkin's normal "walk and talk" style and only goes to make the movie even more static. 

It's probably fundamental to the subscription model of the streaming companies that they have to provide a constant diet of new content in order to guarantee continuing subscriptions, so it's hardly surprising that the quality varies enormously. The Plot section of this film's Wikipedia entry comprises just one sentence. Tells you everything.

I frequently find myself at odds with film critics when they (and sometimes I) review a film. Our approaches, and goals, are different. Critics assess films from technical, artistic and historical points of view: "aspects of Kubrick", "Monroe at her best channelling her inner Bergman", "great use of wide angle lens" and so on. I want to be entertained but, more than that, I want to see a film which I'd be happy to see again and to recommend it to others, and it's not a chore to keep going to the end. Funnily enough, I was quite entertained by this film but only in a "nothing else to do" way. I saw it through to the end but I don't think it would have mattered to me if I had abandoned it halfway. I'm glad I'm not a professional critic required to watch film after film and never sneak out after half an hour.