I just caught Remainder (2015) purely on recommendation from Mark Kermode a film he compared with Synecdoche, New York (2006) another film that caught my imagination in terms of how realities are constructed, both within the film and the theoretical consequences of those constructions. When Tom (Tom Sturridge) suffers brain damage in an awful accident in London, his whole life becomes fragmented. Having to start over again really. Learn to walk, move, to be him again, which is something we never really see, more a version that is after the accident. After a massive payout from the accident he’s in a financial position to try to understand what happened to him. That’s before we see a guy who alienates his brother, his ex and those who just want to help him. Is this him before after the accident, an abrasive guy who just can no longer function normally in society. You would want to steer clear of this guy for a while at least, could it be the brain damage that has altered his personality? None of these questions are really answered.
Instead with a payout (around £8.5 million) he sets about reconstructing a fractured memory. With the money behind him he can start to realise what is going on in his tormented head. Turning to Naz (Arsher Ali) who is quickly hired as his PA, producer and general assistant who takes more than he really has to. A guy who is the conscience of the film – not that you’d really know as he is rather passive unless really needed, You could easily read a sexual relationship of dominator and dominated – Naz being mostly dominated throughout this odd yet rather fascinating film.
I would like to have known how the accident first occurred as we discover it acts as time-loop that would in theory allow the events to unfold infinitely which would allow for a more horrific and disturbing film than what we have. So what do we have when he’s back on his feet. A loner with financial freedom to try and reconstruct his memory, or one specific one, as the clip above begins to really move the plot forward which up until then does drag, as we like Tom are unsure of where things are going, just as much as we are. After the meeting which goes pretty well, we begin to see the perfectionist really breaking out, the control freak who through ear pieces and pure power, his memory starting to resurface. It’s rather odd to see an old lady being told at whim to move forward and then in reverse, to have the sound levels reduced, everything is at his whim. It’s not virtual reality – or is it. It’s a reality that he has constructed to allow him to explore what is or what.
I’m very much reminded of Synecdoche, New York when a theatre director Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) construct and direct a whole world. Yet there’s more creative freedom in this controlled environment. He allows his actors to bring their own interpretations of the roles. It’s a collaborative construction, not one that’s dictated. He has the remote control. There’s no delegation here. The similarities lie in the loss of time, it has no meaning here, only to allow us to re-enact what is going on in and now outside of his head. Both are driven for the truth and at great cost to the men. Before long we see him paying actors to play-out a more intimate moment in his flat, is his torturing himself or wanting to understand this moment in his life. He’s deadly serious and shows no or little thought for those who are part of his recreations.
The action moves from the block of flats to a reconstruction of a bank where a robbery took place, Tom’s fascinated to understand what went on there, how it played out. But why, and how is that connected to him. Only a guy he knew – Chris (Jumayn Hunter) whose killed and believed to be linked to the crime. It’s an avenue he must explore, an instinctive urge within him to explore. He doesn’t care what lengths he goes to, he’s almost suicidal in his acts. The robbery becomes the central focus of the film as Tom begins to pay for a full-scale replica of the bank, the street it’s on and the sky above. It’s like a film set without the cameras to capture the action, no audience to witness the crime, just actors who blindly replay the scene over and over again. A time-loop which can be controlled at his whim.
I was disturbed at the lengths he goes to, the control freak nature of the character makes him very unlikable, yet we carry on watching as we want to know what is this all about. A clinically controlled set that is carrying out the same test right up until the final test where reality is the new variable, shaking up the cards, going out to the real location, the actors have been lab-rats in one giant laboratory experiment, with no real purpose more than to explain the fragments of the mind of a guy that you come to really dislike. It’s the whole process and methodology that keeps you involved in the dark film that really gives you little to work with.
Patients who suffer with amnesia would relish being to have the freedom to re-enact scenes from their fragmented or lost memories in hoping to fill in the lost parts of their long-term memory. I was drawn to the low-key initial creations, the drawings and cardboard models that allowed Tom to start to piece together his past, which turns out to be a vicious circle he is doomed to repeat, there’s no room for change here, not like in Groundhog Day (1993) which allowed weatherman Phil (Bill Murray) to relive and learn from the day and improve himself in order to finally escape this loop which first was too much to handle. Tom is nothing like Phil, who was just as unlikable to begin but finds redemption in his ability to learn and grow. This is pure sci-fi that shows sometimes are destiny can sometimes never be altered. Flawed yet deeply fascinating, with questions that are left unanswered after seeing a guy we hardly know become someone you care little about yet your hanging onto know whats going to happen
Like many who had seen the original The Jungle Book (1967) as a kid who heard the news that one of the crown jewels in Walt Disney’s Studio’s back catalogue was being remade I sighed and wanted nothing to do with it, One of those classics that you know deep down shouldn’t be touched. Another symptom of Hollywood going back to the well of success, afraid to make something new, be brave and actually be original for a change. However a few weeks ago, yes the trailer won me over, the combination of a single actor in this CGI jungle, which allows for a more expansive film than being on location that really does work in this retelling of the Rudyard Kipling classic.
Disney can really do no wrong (most of the time) with the acquisition of both Lucasfilm and Marvel they are not to be messed with and know what they are doing when it comes to their properties. Gone are the days of the straight to video nonsense that lead to spoofs such as Jafar May Need Glass’s which was under the old leadership before John Lasseter and Robert Iger who has seen the company come back into good fortune.
Moving away from the politics of the studio to the classic animated film and the remake The Jungle Book (2016) which is more an expansion and reinterpretation of the source material. Having never read the book like most of us who grew up with the film we have only the animated film to go on. No other versions have been made, just showing how strongly Disney hold onto the copyright. The first notable difference is that there is only one actor on-screen, the man-cub Mowgli (Neel Sethi) who has to do one of the hardest things on-screen acting with very little, instead relying on his imagination, acting ability and whatever direction and visuals he’s given before all the magic really happens. But you soon forget he’s only one there against all the photo-realistic animals that remind me more of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) where the actors did voice overs for the dogs throughout the film. I have to admit that was one of my concerns as to whether the voices would be synchronised with the animation, which thankfully it was (more or less) you can forgive it for being slightly off. You are believing the characters exist in this CGI jungle along with the actors. There are times you believe that Sethi is actually swinging through the trees. I was won over on that score.
Another major difference was the absence of all but two of the songs, keeping two of the more popular ones which are worked in rather nicely. The Bare Necessities is worked in to be a natural part of the film instead of cutting from the action to have the musical number. Working it into the natural dialogue not as a diversion.
The original songs reworked in among the rest of the film which feels fresher, not relying on the classic, instead making the most of the feel of the film which was both fun to. With Bill Murray perfectly cast in the role of Baloo who takes advantage of his new friend, very much in Murray’s characters, all in jest of course, becoming good friends. Whilst the other song I Wanna be Like You which has developed racial undertones in more recent years takes on a darker tone when sung by Christopher Walken as King Louie the now oversized orangutans. It’s a more foreboding song, gone is the light jazz classic, replaced by a sinister deal maker. I’ll always stand by the original being a product of a its time and should be seen in that light.
Walken’s King Louie is not on-screen for long enough but leaves his mark on a film that moves at a steady pace. For those who grew up with the original you are constantly checking to see what is still there and how its been worked in, even just for reasons of nostalgia that is pulling in a lot of the audience at the moment. For the most part the lighter tone of the film is gone, instead replaced with the idea of being yourself and not being afraid of what you can offer society or even your friends. A strong theme for children to come away with as Mowgli’s prevented from developing his human potential in the jungle instead taught to live and think like the wolves who have brought him up.
If anything this retelling of the classic tale has encouraged me to take a look at last years Cinderella to see how the new one compares with the original 1951 animation. Am I softening to all these remakes of classic films? I’m not sure this is only one that has won me over. This is retelling of the original that draws on the original film version, its aware of the past and combines it playfully with a carefully chosen voice cast that matches the original characters. A part of me wanted Benedict Cumberbatch voicing Shere Khan instead of Idris Elba who I grew to like behind the menacing tiger, I guess I’m too attached to the original and George Sanders. I wonder no whats next in line for a remake from the house of mouse?
I’ve seen two Wes Anderson films in the last day, and so far Moonrise Kingdom (2012) is my favourite of the two (having watched The Darjeeling Limited (2009)). Being more used to the stylised world that Anderson creates when placed in a small world such as the fictional New England Island where two young lovers runaway to be together. Whereas the earlier film is more open to a country that three brothers travel across on a train.
Moving away from my preferences of the two film to the innocent plot that sees two very aware pre-teen outcasts Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) who find each other in the strangest way, yet feels very instinctive, leading to what feels like a small Island community dropping everything to find a boy-scout and reclusive girl who have taken off for a life alone together. It’s really sweet when you think about it. Both self-aware of their own lives and short-comings, just embracing the awkwardnesses that make them unique whilst everyone else goes mad looking for them.
First on the lookout is Scout-Master Ward (Edward Norton) a part time maths teacher who leads his boys on the search, who really don’t care about the orphan outcast. Before the a lonely Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) of the police gets a search underway. Whilst at the other end of the island a peculiar girl with an attachment for binoculars looks on for a signal to make a run for it.
You could say that Wes Anderson’s world is santised and controlled, I would say nostalgic and romantic, longing a world that combines the particular past and ideal future, that looks like comic books in terms of the camera movements, reading from one panel to the next as the action unfolds. Which would not be complete without another turn from Bill Murray as Mr Bishop, Suzy’s father who takes the situation in his stride. Playing opposite newcomer Frances McDormand to this world adapting to this world as the mother Mrs Bishop who has to see what is important in her life.
The search is over faster than I thought it would be, still it’s a short film, making way for more antics to happen, the relationship between the young couple is strong, leading them to join up again into a more daring mission to be together, something Suzy’s parents don’t want. But we do. They seem so adult whilst at the same time naive to the world they are about to enter into, just as they have discovered these new emotions.
The action is child lead in this comedy has everything I love about Anderson who lifts from his own experiences to give us a heartfelt romance, without all the mush, it’s sweet but innocent and funny at the same time. Whilst the order is maintained by the adults, and even future predicted by them. It makes me more than ever want to see The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014).
- 14 Moonrise Kingdom Details you might have missed (seriousfilm.blogspot.co.uk)
- Moonrise Kingdom (2012) Review (jdwiden.wordpress.com)
- New Film: Moonrise Kingdom (2012) (tativille.blogspot.co.uk)
- Moonrise Kingdom – Wes Anderson (2012) (10-pointreview.blogspot.co.uk)
- REVIEW: WES ANDERSON’S “MOONRISE KINGDOM” (2012) (ruelleelectrique.wordpress.com)