In Contention

Tag: Heartbeat Detector

  • Small pleasures: Guy’s best (and worst) of 2008

    It’s a lovely thing when you realize, at least part of the way through adulthood, that we still possess the ability to surprise ourselves. When left to graze at leisure, the mind can stumble upon some unexpected notions, frequently overriding the conclusions we thought we had reached after twelve months of watching, writing and (occasionally over-) thinking. And more often than not, it knows best.

    This is what I discovered when I sat myself down on a poolside lounger in the remote hills of Portugal’s Algarve region and set about finalizing this list, which had been eating away at me for the better part of the last six weeks. After various tortured drafts drawn from my scrappy 2008 diaries, notebooks and In Contention entries — none of which looked sufficiently reflective or, frankly, right to me — I decided to dispense with notes entirely and start from scratch, using my memory as my sole resource.

    And so it was that when I asked myself, “What’s the best film you saw in 2008,” the answer that came was not only amazingly swift, immediately satisfying and ultimately inarguable, but it was not the answer I expected to receive. Of course, I knew the film would crop up somewhere prominent in the list — the mind is a filter, after all, not a magician’s hat — but it was one of several films this year (and indeed, on this list) that I would call “growers.”  You see them, you like them, but it takes a few weeks, months even, of rumination and interpretation before you realize just how much you love them.

    It’s something that should be borne in mind when it comes to awards voting, which work on a “survival of the fittest” basis: some films simply take longer than others to make a collective (or selective) impact. This may rule them out of competition time frames, but it doesn’t make them lesser achievements. Similarly, certain films that seem like huge, important deals at the time can leave us scratching our heads when removed from the flurry of the season. In a perfect world, Oscar voting would take place a year or two (or 10) after the release of the year-end glut — but it was ever thus.

    One perception of mine that hasn’t changed through the compilation of this list, however, is that it’s been a year of bijou pleasures. As one talked-up Hollywood title after the other disappointed, dissipated or dared to be merely “good,” the films left standing for me were mostly on the intimate side: small but beautifully formed works bound by character rather than concept, often asking penetrating questions about society, family and the nature of the individual. As the Americans, by and large, treaded water, European cinema soared, with France enjoying a particularly golden streak — the likes of which we haven’t seen in well over a decade.

    I may have complained often in these pages that it’s been a “bad year” for film, but as I look down the list of 20 titles that I finally arrived at, covering as it does a pretty rich variety of moods and forms, it now seems graceless to say so. When Hollywood flickers, different voices emerge, and for that we should be grateful. Perhaps it hasn’t been a bad year…just a smaller one.

    (more…)

  • Forster on Bond: It’s about character

    Odd to be linking to Time Out twice in one day, but I couldn’t let this interview with Marc Forster, director of the keenly awaited “Quantum of Solace,” go by. The interview finds Forster in London, scrabbling to complete the first edit of the latest 007 outing in a fortnight’s time.

    Many eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that the low-key director of “Monster’s Ball,” “Finding Neverland,” and “The Kite Runner” was taking on this most commercial of franchises – I always thought it rather a nice fit. For me, Forster never injected much individual flair or perspective into his otherwise workmanlike ‘serious’ pictures; I have a feeling more of his creative personality might emerge when working against the grain of his interests. Certainly, Forster doesn’t seem to be radically modifying his storytelling approach – he believes he was hired because the producers wanted a more “emotional component” to the film:

    Several times (Forster) mentions what he believes will be at the heart of the new film: character. ‘The great thing is that Daniel and I had an intense relationship, so between us we could always go back to the character … There’s this conflict going on: he’s an assassin, but he’s also lost someone he loves. We’re asking: where’s the psychological conflict in that?

    Sounds good to me. Other promising tidbits include Forster citing genius production designer Ken Adam, who worked on the first Bond films, as an influence on his creative vision, and a sneak peek at what promises to be the most exciting foe in some time for 007:

    We see a flash, too, of the new Bond villain, French actor Mathieu Amalric, who plays a character with the decidedly unvillainous name of Dominic Greene. ‘In the old Bond films, it was clear who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Today, it’s not so clear. I feel like Mathieu looks so sympathetic and normal, the type you can’t see right away is the villain.’

    (more…)