Cinema
Cinema / Library

Poison

- by Emily

“Frivolous thoughts in exciting moments.”

Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes appear in this retelling of Roald Dahl’s Poison, directed by Wes Anderson.

Cumberbatch is trapped. He cannot move, cannot leave his bed, or something horrific will happen to him. Nobody can see what the ‘something’ is. Which begs the question: Is it real?

Patel desperately attempts to help his friend, calling on a local Doctor. What follows is a mad and intense attempt to save him. Perhaps not intense; the atmosphere is more neurotic, reflecting Cumberbatch’s mental state as he sweats and panics, frozen in place. Utterly incapable of helping himself or properly explaining his true situation to others, he digs himself deeper into a pit of fear before working himself up into a frenzy after the source (or not) of his alarm is revealed. He thanks his friends by openly insulting and attacking them. Of course, it does not take an English Literature graduate to understand that perhaps what he is really working through is his own internal battles, which he physically shows by tearing into anyone who stays by his side.

Camera angles play a major part in setting the scene. Sideways, forwards, from above, from the ceiling, split screens; all are used to ping-pong between scenes and the man’s mental anguish. This is yet another excellent adaptation, with Dahl’s obsessive and unhinged characters careering into Anderson’s strict and purposeful scene-setting. Loss and loathing scar the small rooms in which the action takes place. Kingsley is wounded in the fray and exits the stage, leaving Patel to clean up the pieces and reassess his friendship with the awful, cornered, scared man in the bed.
Cinema / Library

The Rat Catcher

- by Emily

“Something sinister and cruel but I had to see it.”

Ralph Fiennes, Richard Ayoade, and Rupert Friend star in a third Roald Dahl Adaptation by director Wes Anderson: The Rat Catcher. Perhaps my favourite of the four, this disquieting story introduces us to Fiennes’ furtive Rat Catcher.

The Rat Catcher himself combines serious skill with suspect delivery to produce a man who keeps you on edge; a man with an appetite for murder and an uncanny resemblance to the animals he is hunting. Fiennes is entirely believable as a man who kills vermin for a living. Ayoade and Friend are increasingly nervous in his presence, moving from indifference to respect to fear over the course of a few minutes. Neither can stop watching with increased fascination and disgust as the little rat man stalks his prey, until the final uncompromising moment when they realise the lengths he is willing to go to reach his goal.

This story reveals Dahl’s penchant for dark undertones that lead you to question who is right and who is the one in the wrong. ‘This is a horrible, deadly, disgusting thing, awful. . . do you want to see?’ is still a universally asked question.

Continuing to use the theatre as a jumping-off point for the stories, Anderson produces depth through layering multiple flat painted boards interspersed with 3D models or sets. Stagehands provide the actors with everything they need. A few actors rotate through multiple roles, disappearing into each one and reappearing again later with an entirely different mindset. Much like in his retelling of Fantastic Mr. Fox, Anderson uses animation for the hapless rats, perfectly employed for maximum reaction.

The Rat Catcher is unrelenting in its build up to Fiennes’ final trick. The atmosphere is that which permeates maybe an ancient rural village undergoing great change. It gets a bit Wicker Man in parts. We also learn about the uses of rat’s blood. None of which are true, I hope. . .
Cinema / Library

The Swan

- by Emily

“It came to him suddenly that he was going to win.”

The Swan is the second of four of Roald Dahl’s splendid short stories to be adapted by director Wes Anderson. Bringing together Anderson’s eclectic spirit with Dahl’s imagination and undertones creates a rich adaptation of the story of a young boy just trying to survive his day.

Rupert Friend is the main narrator here, with Ralph Fiennes accompanying to give extra context. Friend describes a day in the life of young Peter, a bird-watcher, whose hobby is not appreciated by the local older boys. They torment Peter mercilessly in a series of scenes set up much like a theatre stage. Brightly coloured crops in the fields juxtapose the dark clothes and melancholic subject matter.

Friend reels off every detail in an extremely childlike manner, directly describing everything being re-enacted around him. Is he embodying the child, or is the description straightforward as though someone were listing off points in a memory for an official record? The answer is soon revealed, adding heightened emotion, and making it clear that this is all spoken from the heart. Much like The Wonderful World of Henry Sugar, this speech pattern sounds more like a recollection in a courtroom than a friendly reminiscence.

The theatre setup is used repeatedly throughout these adaptations. Stage-hands discreetly move scenery, hand over props, or move characters into position. A stripe of light focussed only on the eyes draws you into the memories. Cut out circles in cardboard are used to replicate views through binoculars. My favourite detail are the puppets; the birds and children are recreated in perfect stop motion detail, including a handheld woodpecker which young Peter holds that actually moves.

The Swan sat in Dahl’s Ideas Book for thirty years before finally being written out properly in October 1976. This new version is a perfect reimaging of the tale of loss and growth.
Cinema / Library

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

- by Emily

“Well-fed women circle the roulette wheel like plump hens around a feeding hopper.”

Four of Roald Dahl’s magnificent short stories have been adapted for the small screen by Wes Anderson, to be shown on Netflix as part of a new series of productions of Dahl’s work. I watched all four over the space of two unseasonably warm October days.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar was written in 1976 at Gipsy House and published along with six other stories in 1977. It follows the attempts of Henry Sugar to master a great and ancient skill which he learns about in typical leftfield fashion by stealing a small notebook from the great mansion of a friend; a notebook that describes the incredible abilities of a man called Imdad Khan (Imhrat Khan in Dahl’s writing). Khan can see without using his eyes.

Benedict Cumberbatch, Ralph Fiennes, Dev Patel, Richard Ayoade and Ben Kingsley all star in Wes Anderson’s version of events. All play multiple characters. Fiennes begins as an introducer or narrator or perhaps chorus-analogue, setting expectations. The opening scene nearly does not feel like watching a film; it feels as though I am watching and listening to someone’s father patiently explaining something he is very interested in. He includes specific details which are important to him that are perhaps not strictly relevant but without which extra colour to the story would be lost.

The theatre-like backgrounds and staging are akin to Anna Karenina (Joe Wright, 2012) and provide the small cast with the opportunity to flex their muscles in various roles. It also allows for the narrator-style exposition to carry a thread through all scenes, which is excellent, and the switch between Fiennes as future narrator to Cumberbatch as past experiencer is very smooth. Ayoade and Patel are amusing and somewhat sweet in their roles as flabbergasted doctors attempting to understand Kingsley’s incredible trick of seeing whilst his eyes are covered in clay, cotton pads, and metres of bandages.

Each scene feels like a dramatic reenactment or perhaps court record being read out, every character giving their side of the story to the camera in asides. Split screens are used several times for dramatic effect; one side is black, the other holds the action in place, making the viewer concentrate on a narrow area of screen, focussing on one specific moment. There is wonderful use of lighting to highlight the eyes of key characters.

Anderson is one of my favourite directors and he has a knack for paying attention to the random accoutrements needed in a room to make it look real, but arranged in such a way that everything looks set-up, purposeful, and unreal. Although Anderson and Dahl are different types of weird, the stories seem to suit having one eclectic man adapt another.

At only 40 minutes long there really is no reason not to watch this film. ‘Wonderful’ is a truly fitting word for this joyful adaptation. The three other short films all clock in at around 15 minutes and I will be discussing those soon.

My final point: Fiennes is brilliant as a policeman.
Cinema

An Exhilarating Start to Marvel’s Phase Four – Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

- by Emily

A fresh start as Shang-Chi continues that winning Marvel Studios formula whilst introducing an exciting and impressive cast of new characters.

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is a subtle departure from previous Marvel properties, and an eagerly awaited one at that. Highly anticipated as a new start both for Marvel and the superhero genre as a whole, over the first weekend of Autumn we were finally able to see whether Shang-Chi lived up to all expectations. The answer? Yes, of course it did. It was excellent.

Marvel continues its habit of plucking relatively unknown actors and actresses out of very talented thin air and introducing them to the world stage. Simu Liu is wonderfully cast as Shang-Chi, and brings heart, soul and impressive strength to the role. Meng’er Zhang is another newcomer, going in hard in her first on-screen role as Shang-Chi’s sister Xialing.

A masterful Tony Leung needs no introduction. It is very rare to find such a soulful, multi-faceted villain in Marvel films and Tony Leung provides welcome depth to his role.

That slightly awkward Marvel humour is still on show here, except this time it’s actually funny. Awkwafina has brilliant timing, and none of her bits detract from her abilities or her position as a solid person to lean on in a tough situation.

Director Dustin Daniel Cretton somehow manages to wring out fresh takes from everybody’s favourite clichés, from the training montage to father/son relationships, to finding out who you really are and exactly what you are capable of. Stunt choreography (supervised by Bradley Allan) is sinuous and fluid, whilst ensuring you feel the mental intensity required of every move. A hairy San Francisco bus ride demonstrates the impact you can have in a small space without the need for huge CGI or special effects.

Overall, this film is hugely impressive. There is a clear love for the mythology and Asian history surrounding the environment, whilst the fight choreography is intense and very entertaining. Refreshing the superhero genre with new characters, a new cast and a greater respect for the emotional connections between family, friends, and lovers, Shang-Chi succeeds in re-igniting excitement for the next phase of comic book film history.
Cinema

The Most Recent Emma Adaptation is a Sumptuous Display

- by Emily

Emma. February 2020 Director: Autumn de Wilde

The latest in a long line of adaptations of the last novel published in Austen’s lifetime, Autumn de Wilde’s Emma. is an absolutely exquisite imagining. This perfectly cast comedy of passionate misunderstanding features enough longing glances and bucolic country villages to keep the most fervent Austen fan happy, whilst introducing some added extras for those not yet convinced. It isn’t entirely without fault; it does feel a bit more sumptuous than scintillating in parts, and it veers towards an excuse to play dress-up rather than a focused attempt to understand the emotional effects of the wayward Emma’s private goals, but overall, I loved this version of a classic.

Autumn de Wilde’s film begins with some bare-faced cheek and ends with a nosebleed, discovery of morals (sort of) and, of course, marriages. In between is a lavish display of wealth, beauty, humour, passion, longing, anger, and tea sets. The film is bright, airy, and clean, with no half-measures or muted tones. Pastel furniture serves to bring out the strong colours of the handsome costumes. One thing which drew me to this adaptation was the array of costumes shown in the trailer. The film itself did not disappoint, with a lovely wide range of pelisses, spencers, printed cottons, high waistlines, and even higher collars; men had to fight with these towering collars as well as with their fraught passions. Several of the pieces appear to be recreations of genuine garments, including a deep pink embroidered net dress which can be found in the Victoria and Albert Museum. My absolute favourite is a deep mustardy yellow ensemble worn by Emma in posters advertising the film. Period-accurate ringlets emerge from underneath a large feathered hat which matches the patterned reticule carried in Emma’s white crochet-patterned gloves. Vivid colours were much appreciated throughout and would have been in full use during the time period, especially by the upper classes. I very much enjoyed seeing a period production with such rich tones. Consider the fact that everything would have been lit by candlelight; if you wore anything too drab and dreary you would not be seen by your society friends at those beautiful balls!

This may be an obvious comparison to make for those who are a fan of his work, but I was reminded of Wes Anderson through the colour use and synchronicity of characters on-screen. Everyone was arranged just-so, sitting at very particular angles and moving around the scenes in such a way that was very reminiscent Anderson’s specific stylised way of shooting. Perhaps this is a reflection of de Wilde’s past as a music video director, cover art photographer and fashion photographer. It does occasionally feel barely-skin-deep and leads to a tinge of style over substance, but I appreciated the dollhouse aesthetics. Fun Fact: According to an Architectural Digest article (https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/emma-set-design), one of the wishes for the film was that the house used as the Woodhouse residence be one not seen on film before, which added a certain freshness to the production, further to all those lovely vivid colours!

While the cake stands gleamed, polite society sparkled and candles flickered, the cast shined above all. Bill Nighy (Mr. Woodhouse) was a fussy, fiddly, funny hypochondriac who was constantly verging on the ridiculous without ever toppling over into being irritating. Everything is a disaster and he is not the expected calm or level-headed presence that a head of the family ‘should’ have, which is quite refreshing. Johnny Flynn (Mr. Knightley) barely keeps himself in check throughout; expressing his deepest desires in a look or a grimace or a darted glance, he was, to me, a very true portrayal of want and exasperation. You could feel the frustration in a scene in which he flings his jacket and then himself to the floor after a frustrating interaction with Emma. Also, actually, quite funny!  I felt him very well matched to the role and to Emma herself. I much preferred his detachment and only-just controlled emotion to the Mr. Knightley given to us in the 1996 version.

Anya Taylor-Joy is a dream as Emma Woodhouse. Again, compared to the 1996 version, this Emma came out on top. I felt Gwyneth Paltrow was a bit too prissy in ’96 (sorry, Gwyneth) which meant I didn’t even really notice the famously harsh picnic scene. In Taylor-Joy’s hands I couldn’t miss it. I felt that Taylor-Joy was sharper and more aloof throughout the film which suited the character far better than if she had been prim and proper. After all, we don’t actually have to like our main characters, but they do have to be engaging. In de Wilde’s adaptation, Emma had the right mix of being very sure of herself and being entirely out of her depth once her machinations start throwing out unintended results. Emma fancies herself as separate and ‘above all that’ but in actuality, she is purposefully ignoring what goes on around her in order to keep her independence (obviously, why wouldn’t you I suppose). She can live vicariously through others while keeping her autonomy and position as carer of her father’s estate, with all the freedom and wealth that entails. Although she does start to realise that perhaps, she should actually think about her plans a bit before acting on them, I’m not sure I detected much character development in this version, but I really don’t think that matters. In fact, I liked it. We do not need her to transform into an angel or suddenly become as lovely and nice and accomplished as Miss Fairfax. She just needs to learn something, which she does, which makes the character of Emma Woodhouse feel all the more real. She does not need to apologise in order for us to be invested in the story.

Callum Turner as Frank Churchill spoke and acted as though he was about ready to ravage every teacup or glass of wine or woman he came across. He had lots of fun threatening to be a bit sleazy but really had his eyes on only one woman (and it wasn’t Emma, to her shock). Josh O’Connor gave a wonderfully awkward, hammed up performance as an obsessive, petty, vindictive Mr. Elton. He has the perfect customer service face for pleasing someone despite what you really think, and he also had excellent comic timing. I love it when you can tell someone’s up to something! Connor Swindell as Mr. Martin was the loveliest, sweetest, most forgiving man in the village, perfect for the equally lovely Harriet. In a traditional love story Harriet and Mr. Martin could be the main characters what with all their lovelorn glances and unfair separation at the hands of another who doesn’t care for them, but Austen’s masterful take on romance sees them become more of a side dish to Emma’s impetuous main course. Oliver Chris (John Knightley) is just brilliant at combining permanent agitation and exasperation into a riled-up supporting role, who also has excellent timing.

Harriet Smith, played by Mia Goth, genuinely showed true happiness and vulnerability. I felt that Goth played her very well with a voice and stance that paired well with the character of Harriet. I did enjoy the development of character from girlish hopeless romantic to a woman who knows her position and can stand her ground. She is naïve but not a weakling; once she discovers her own sense of self, she is very capable of standing tall. Mia Goth showed just the right amount of nervousness without reverting to childishness. I thought her very sweet. Amber Anderson as Jane Fairfax was also lovely, and while I keep repeating this, another great casting who matched the character completely. I loved her scene stealing performances at the piano and the shock of those in the audience when her paying is forceful and intense, rather than the expected delicate reflection of outer self.

My favourite, my absolute favourite character, above all, is the one and only Mrs. Elton, played with aplomb by Tanya Reynolds. While very spiny in the ’96 version, here she is pompous and ridiculous which just feels so much better. She is unintentionally hilarious takes herself so very seriously. I adored every single one of her scenes, especially when she protests that she isn’t overdressed and doesn’t do that sort of thing while wearing a ludicrous get-up and hitting the dancefloor as soon as she can. Miranda Hart, meanwhile, completes the cast with the innocently happy Miss Bates. Another favourite, her bumbling is a joy to behold, and that heart-breaking picnic scene is handled ever so well by Hart. I want to be more like the charming Miss Bates.

(I do need to quickly mention the side and background characters, none of whom were wasted. Part of the scenery they most certainly were not, and their smirks or bewildered expressions added a nice touch to the awkward scenes.)

Finally, I cannot talk about a Regency adaptation without mentioning the dancing. The clearest plot device to encourage emotions to the fore, the dancing is extremely important. See also Pride & Prejudice; here as there, the couple (Mr. Knightley and Emma, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth) are both physically and metaphorically separated from all else. It is intense and suffocating yet sensual and forces a realisation of the passion simmering below the surface, despite the only contact being through light hand holding. Can you love someone if you cannot dance with them?

As you can probably tell, I liked this film. Stylistically on point, brilliant cast, period accurate, and, in my opinion, better than the 1996 version. It’s been out for a while now, but I urge you to have a look. Now please excuse me whilst I gaze longingly at a handsome yet slightly arrogant local landowner from across the other side of a ballroom. . .

Here are some links to interesting articles for those who wish to read more:

https://fashionista.com/2020/02/emma-movie-autumn-de-wilde-interview-costumes

http://www.songsmyth.com/menday.html

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Georgian-Fashion/