Tag Archives: cinema



Rather coincidentally I have watched a number of films recently with female lead protagonists and hopefully this harks a more progressive move toward equality in leading roles. As a humanist myself I applaud any movement which proclaims and pursues empowerment and equality to every human being. For far too long people have been oppressed, including women, and we must rid the world of prejudice and negativity based on gender, race, sexuality, health, shoe size, hair colour and looks in general.

Thus, in mild tribute to yesterday’s International Women’s Day I am reviewing some very different films where female characters are to the fore. In these reviews I will consider the characters and their strengths and place in their given setting and world; as well as my own subjective appreciation of the films. As usual the marks are out of eleven.




Andrea Arnold is an incredibly talented filmmaker and her films Red Road (2006) and Fishtank (2009) were bleak, honest and brilliant representations of working class British life. In American Honey she tackles the on-the-road-under-belly-working-class representations of American life with mixed results. Sasha Lane portrays Star, a young, transient and energetic character attempting to find hope, love and money on the oily, grimy roads of the USA. She joins a rag-tag troupe of magazine sellers led by Shia LaBeouf and Riley Keough, who drink, smoke pot and fuck while crossing various States! Star’s character is naïve and feisty, and as she falls for LeBeouf’s charismatic Jake, she finds her life choices coming into question. Overall, this is a beautifully shot and directed film and Arnold gets some very interesting performances from an amateur supporting cast, but the film is TOO LONG and many of the characters are just too unlikeable and stoned to care about. With editing Star’s journey could have been even more fascinating but despite some enthralling scenes I struggled to connect. (Mark: 6 out of 11)



Christine Chubbuck was a Sarasota TV news journalist who became infamous for an incredibly sad act she carried out live on TV. I won’t reveal what is was for fear of spoilers BUT safe to say it was not pretty. Rebecca Hall portrays this complex character with an artistic and haunted beauty; with Christine’s character totally infected by stark depression. She just does not fit in as she seeks artistic more human stories at work and clashes with her ratings-seeking boss, portrayed sympathetically by Tracy Letts. Michael C. Hall as the handsome news ‘anchor’ also tries to connect with Christine but her mood swings, paranoia and punishing work schedule pushes her away from those around her. Family, friends, and colleagues all rally round but ultimately Christine’s depression defeats her. Rebecca Hall is brilliant as Christine and this is a very absorbing, character study which sticks in the heart and mind. (Mark: 8.5 out of 11)



The ubiquitous Scarlett Johansson once again takes on an impressive kick-ass futuristic female role which finds her “ghost” inserted in to a computer-powered “shell”. Despite incredible visuals and fight scenes and Scarlett again proving a dominant screen presence the film is a let-down from a narrative and script perspective. There is a decent story in there as Johansson’s Major uncovers a nefarious murder plot being carried by evil corporations (is there any other kind?); but while looking pretty and carrying some impressive special effects this is an underwhelming adaptation of the original Japanese anime cult classic. (Mark: 5.5 out of 11)



Tonya Harding was an incredibly talented and driven ice skater who went on to represent the USA at the Worlds and Olympics.  She was also the first American female skater to perform two triple axel jumps in the same set. However, she also surrounded herself with and married fucking idiot men who ruined, along with her poor decisions, her career. As portrayed by Margot Robbie, Tonya is a potty-mouthed, bitter, energetic, unlikeable person yet effervescent and funny. Off the ice she continually chooses to go back to her abusive husband Jeff Gilhooly (impressive Sebastian Stan); while on the ice she skates with passion, determination, and brilliance. Steven Rogers script and Craig Gillespie’s direction present the story in mockumentary form with some comedy sketch-style cutaways which on occasion take away from the emotional core. Alison Janney is formidable as Harding’s hard-faced, pushy mother. However, it is her aggression and abuse which, while creating an incredible sportsperson in Tonya, also crushes all the love from the mother-daughter relationship. (Mark: 8.5 out of 11)



Greta Gerwig’s very personal rites of passage character study is a breezy, touching, emotional and funny hop through the life of Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson, as she navigates from High School to College. Lady Bird is a complex representation of young womanhood as her character is irrational, bitchy, kind, irritating, neurotic and somehow kind of loveable. Saoirse Ronan, Tracy Letts, and Laurie Metcalfe excel in a great ensemble cast and Gerwig’s script begins like a train with a flurry of very quick and funny scenes involving Lady Bird, her family, school friends and objects of desire. Later, notably with Lady Bird’s strained relationship with her mother, the film tugs at the heart strings to enthralling effect. Lady Bird has received a lot of critical acclaim and deserves much praise as Gerwig shows she is going to be a directorial talent to watch out for.

(Mark: 8 out of 11)



Another ambiguous, cerebral arthouse film from filmmaker Olivier Assayas containing both thriller and ghostly elements. The haunted Kristen Stewart plays a grief-stricken individual who is both a psychic and personal shopper. Stewart’s character Maureen is a lost soul working a job she hates searching for closure.  While attempting to connect psychically with her deceased brother she is also stalked by an unknown person or “force”. As a character study the film works very well but I would have preferred the ghostly element of the story to play out emotionally as the other story did not successfully merge for me. I guess it’s open to interpretation but it felt like the filmmaker was telling two stories which did not hold together successfully. Stewart though imbues Margaret with a cold, distanced but powerful empathy and her fear and paranoia drives the story, notably in a couple of very creepy scenes. (Mark: 7 out of 11)





Aside from my longer, pretentious and pontificating reviews I also like to chuck in a few quick-fire posts for films I’ve watched on cable, satellite TV, catch-up, DVD and cinema over the past few months. Think of them as movie reviews for the attention deficient or for the lazy bastards like me, who from time to time, skim-read before catching the mark at the bottom. As usual I accompany the reviews with marks out of eleven.



Very solid 1970s set crime drama boasts an excellent cast including: Clive Owen, Billy Crudup and Marion Cotillard. (Mark: 7.5 out of 11)

Image result for blood ties



Brilliant ensemble cast propel this sub-Star-Trek-story that’s been crow-barred into the Cloverfield franchise. (Mark: 5.5 out of 11)



Thomas Vinterberg directs this appealing slice of ‘70s Swedish life as a group of adults attempt to find “perfect” living within a commune situation. (Mark: 8 out of 11)



Overblown, overdone and overlong gothic horror finds Dane DeHaan struggling against evil doctors and an even more unbalanced screenplay. (Mark: 6 out of 11)



Ricky Gervais is on funny form as the deluded David Brent, as the Office ‘star’ goes on the road trying to gain fame as a pop star. (Mark: 7.5 out of 11)




Richard Linklater’s brilliantly orchestrated end-of-school-year-stoner-comedy features an incredible cast of soon-to-be-famous actors!  (Mark: 8 out of 11)



Horrifically poor and uneven Mad-Max-Texas-Chainsaw rip off which while very stylish is completely unwatchable with unlikeable characters. (Mark: 3 out of 11)



This touching WW2 set love story, shot on crisp black and white and deftly directed by Francois Ozon, breaks and mends one’s heart in equal measures. (Mark: 8 out of 11)

Image result for FRANTZ



Ethan Hawke excels in an offbeat, violent revenge Western which fails dramatically because of the irritating villain and over-familiar plot. (Mark: 6 out of 11)



Guy Ritchie’s take on the Camelot legend suffers a total personality breakdown; neither committing fully to Charlie Hunnam’s geezer-King-Arthur (good) or the swords and sorcery subplots (bad!). (Mark: 6.5 out of 11)



Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton are never less than brilliant in their performances as a mixed race couple battling the racist law which strives to keep them apart. (Mark: 8.5 out of 11)

Image result for LOVING POSTER



Raising bleakness to the level of poetry, this tragic Russian ‘missing child’ thriller is expertly constructed, but features two of the most selfish characters I’ve ever experienced in a movie. (Mark: 8 out of 11)



Classic 1980s British drama written by Hanif Kureishi features Daniel Day Lewis in an early role finds cultures, sexuality and politics clashing in dirty old South London. (Mark: 8 out of 11)



Steven Spielberg’s worthy freedom-of-speech drama is wonderfully shot and acted but felt too subtle and dramatically under-cooked for such an important moment in American history. (Mark: 7 out of 11)



Preston Sturges brilliant comedy combines slapstick, romance and social satire as Joel McCrea’s pampered film director attempts to find the “meaning of life” in depression-hit America. (Mark: 10 out of 11)




Cult existential Aussie psychological thriller finds Gary Bond’s English teacher attempting to escape his pitiful lot but falling further and further into a nightmarish outback abyss.  (Mark: 8 out of 11)



Something to offend everyone! CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM – SEASON 9 – TV REVIEW


Created by and story by: Larry David

Executive producer(s): Larry David, Jeff Garlin, Robert B. Weide, Larry Charles, Erin O’Malley, Alec Berg etc.

Production company(s): HBO Entertainment, Warner Bros.

Starring: Larry David, Jeff Garlin, Cheryl Hines, Susie Essman, J. B. Smoove etc.



There’s absolutely no reason why a situation comedy about an aging, wealthy, neurotic and narcissistic Hollywood writer should be one of the most consistently funny comedy shows of the last twenty years. There’s no real substance or depth in Curb Your Enthusiasm; in fact not much really happens of great value as it occurs in a “Larry David / Hollywood” bubble. Moreover, in anti-hero Larry David you more often than not find his behaviour abhorrent as he goes about upsetting friends, family members, celebrities, and strangers on a daily basis. However, due to the writing, cast and situations the humour is always pretty, pretty good!


After a six-year hiatus Larry David is back and nothing really has changed. The formula remains the same inasmuch as he gets himself in ridiculous situations upsetting everyone around him, resulting in the most farcical of comedic pay-offs. However, while many of the narrative reveals can be seen a long way off it doesn’t make them any less enjoyable. Special highlights during Season 9 are JB Smoove’s scene-stealing turns as Larry’s “house-guest” Leon Black; who over the course of the last few seasons has inveigled his way into Larry’s life. The two have become an unlikely double act as uncool Jewish bald guy buddies up with his cooler, streetwise and “player” pal. With Leon and Larry you get a relationship which both reflects and satirizes racial stereotypes to funny effect.


While most of the Season 9 episodes work as stand-alone stories the integral over-riding arc involves Larry David writing a new Broadway show. Inspired by events which occurred to novelist Salman Rushdie, Larry has written a musical called, incredibly, Fatwa!  At first everyone loves the idea and rushes to invest. However, when Larry mocks the Ayatollah on the Jimmy Kimmel show he himself is, you’ve guessed it, hit with a Fatwa!!  The running gags throughout created by this comedic narrative are very broad, un-PC, stereotypically offensive; but also bloody hilarious. I wondered why there wasn’t more controversy; however, Larry David himself is the butt of many of these jokes as he fails to lift the Fatwa.


The season is crammed with celebrity appearances and particular standouts are: Salman Rushdie, Elizabeth Banks, F. Murray Abraham; and Hamilton creator Lin Manuel-Miranda. The latter hilariously clashes with Larry during the production of the Fatwa: The Musical. There are also some great gags relating to everyday observations including: Uber ratings; pickle jars; tipping; disturbances in kitchens; Asperger’s; plus many more. The episode, Running with the Bulls, with Bryan Cranston portraying Larry’s harangued therapist, was probably my favourite. It was also great to see The Mighty Boosh comedy nut-case Rich Fulcher make an appearance as an evasive Restaurant Manager. Overall, the season was pretty scatter-gun in it’s target humour but it certainly hit the mark throughout. I’m just amazed, in these liberal-PC-social-media-offence-driven times there wasn’t more controversy. Having said that Larry David probably wouldn’t care as in his own words, “I have reservations about everything I do.”

Mark: 9.5 out of 11

Gary Oldman shines in DARKEST HOUR (2017) – Cinema Review


Directed by: Joe Wright

Produced by: Tim Bevan, Lisa Bruce, Eric Fellner, Anthony McCarten, Douglas

Written by: Anthony McCarten

Starring: Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ben Mendelsohn


What makes human beings want to go to war?  What is it that determines thoughts and actions which will lead to the death of another human being? Is it: a genetic trait; a tribal desire; a psychological defect; financial gain; jealousy; boredom; passion; political chicanery; religion; greed; anger; revenge; or quite simply madness. Taking a life is something I have never understood. I mean, unless you are forced to defend yourself against a foe hell-bent on your destruction why would you wish to harm anyone else?

So, Adolf Hitler has a lot to answer for because, even accepting the political and social reasons for the rise of the Nazi party and his desire to repair national pride after the first World War, what the hell gives a nation the right to invade and conquer other countries. If you choose to go down that road you are signing the death certificate of a generation men and women and children. It’s not just Germany either. The British Empire, Roman Empire, Vikings, Mongols, United States of America, France and many more have waged war against humanity down the years. Will it ever stop? Sadly, I doubt it.


In times of war what is needed is obviously bravery, steel, fight, intelligence and more than a little luck. You need hearty human beings to stand and be counted and to die on the battlefields and in the air and in the sea. You also need leaders; figureheads who can rally the troops and galvanise that last ounce of fight in order to repel the enemy. During World War II, with the country on its knees and backs to the walls we had many leaders, but Winston Churchill, above all else, became synonymous with victory.


As portrayed in Joe Wright’s beautifully shot microcosmic epic, Darkest Hour, Churchill is presented as a flawed-pink-pyjama’d-cigar-chuffing-blustering-iconoclastic-functioning-alcholic prone to fits of rage, melancholy and depression. He also happens to be devilishly intelligent, full of energy, with a wicked tongue and talent for brilliant oration. Much of the plaudits must go to Gary Oldman, and his make-up team, for creating such a wonderfully human portrait. Indeed, Oldman owns the screen with his damned-near perfect impression.


Anthony McCarten’s fine script centres on a finite number of days during World War II when Churchill became Prime Minister. Aside from one emotionally effective yet historically grating symbolic scene on the London underground, is it well written with fantastic one-liners and Churchill’s greatest verbal ‘hits’. Joe Wright is a talented director (the mis-guided Pan (2015) aside) and he evocatively conveys the shadow of looming defeat. Wright traps Churchill and ensemble in cars, lifts and in underground chambers. Shafts of light also pin the characters to the corners of the screen; pushing them toward the darkness. But through the spirit of Churchill’s never-say-die attitude we fought back against the Nazis and eventually stole victory from the jaws of defeat. War is hell. War is madness. But sometimes it is unfortunately a necessity to prevent the bullies from winning.

Mark: 8.5 out of 11



Directed by: Aaron Sorkin

Produced by: Mark Gordon, Amy Pascal, Matt Jackson

Screenplay by: Aaron Sorkin

Based on: Molly’s Game  by Molly Bloom

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, Michael Cera, Jeremy Strong, Bill Camp

Image result for mollys game POKER

As a species we like to have fun. It makes us feel good to manufacture a chemical reaction in our minds and body to create a high and distance ourselves from our own mortality. One such means of fun is gambling. It is fun right: placing bets on the outcome of a game be it chance or skill?  I mean it must be fun because so many humans do it, right? Nothing bad comes of fun surely!  Nothing bad comes of gambling? Wrong! Of course it does.

Gambling is one of the stupidest things a human being can do. You are willingly handing your money to a bookie or competitor or casino in a game of chance in the hope of winning money. Your hard earned cash is at the mercy of: the turn of a card; the roll of a dice; the kick of a ball; the speed of a horse; and the spin of a wheel. To me THAT is crazy. I know because I used to gamble on the horses and loved it but not when I lost. That high soon dissipated and fun twisted and dug and before you know it you’re in a low-hole and light is getting further and further away the deeper you go.

Image result for mollys game

There are many players out there who will say poker is not a game of chance. It is a keen game of skill relying on intelligence, guts and psychological warfare. I would go along with that but it is, unless fixed, always reliant on major elements of fate. There are a plethora of multi-millionaires out there who have got rich playing poker no doubt. Yet, I bet there are some sob stories too of players who have lost everything at the table.

Such characters litter Aaron Sorkin’s excellent biopic of poker “madam” Molly Bloom.  You’ve got the bankers, hedge-funders, cowboys, sporting legends, A-list actors and gangsters; all co-mingling around a green baize table facing off over the turn of a card. For me it’s an ostentatious representation of hedonistic narcissism. I mean: that money could be used for good but instead is being used for pointless card games which only serve to boost egos and satisfy bottomless, black-hole addictions. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean the film is not entertaining because it is.

Image result for mollys game

Sorkin asks us to, at times, empathise for a criminal in Molly Bloom, however, she must be admired for her ballsy attitude, intelligence and organisational skills. Much of the kudos for the film goes to Sorkin’s fantastic script and the sterling performance from Jessica Chastain; who possesses a magnetic on-screen aura reminiscent of the Hollywood stars of yesteryear. Couple of reservations in that with a story about a powerful woman it was disappointing that Costner’s father and Idris Elba’s lawyer got the best speeches at the end of the film. Moreover, at no point did I REALLY care about anyone, aside from Molly when she gets in too deep. But that’s the point: the professional poker world is a shark pool full of predators and Bloom’s story is a complex one, raised above that of your standard crime drama by a zinging screenplay and Jessica Chastain’s nuanced acting.

Mark: 8 out of 11



Directed by:                      Scott Cooper
Produced by:                    Scott Cooper, Ken Kao, John Lesher
Screenplay by:                 Scott Cooper
Story by:                            Donald E. Stewart
Starring:                            Christian Bale, Rosamund Pike, Wes Studi, Adam Beach
Music by:                           Max Richter

Image result for american blooded flag

Death and America seem to go hand in hand down the realms of history; entwined bedfellows with society, industry and apparent civilisation being watered by blood and bone and marrow of humanity. The coagulation of Native American lives spread to the dust could be argued to be one of the most despicable genocidal acts ever perpetrated against a generation. And what was it all for? So, human beings from one side of a huge ocean can take what essentially belonged to the indigenous men, women and children of what we now know is called the United States of America. Red dust scorches that land and people and it’s a stain which will never ever be removed.

Image result for HOSTILES

Even in the last one hundred years and more the Neo-Americans have militarized and invaded many other countries borne, on occasion for the greater good but generally to colonize, re-politicize and scavenge the goods of those said lands. Thus, it is never surprising when the natives choose to repel their invaders as they’d prefer their land to remain their own. For the price of defending their land history has named them savages and other cruel labels in an attempt to differentiate their culture and make them the enemy. Of course, there are good people within the U.S.A who oppose such invasions but the truth remains even they live on blooded ground.

Image result for HOSTILES

The weight of guilt and pain and death hang heavy in Scott Cooper’s slow-moving and elegant Western. It’s a character driven piece with Christian Bale, Rosamund Pike, Wes Studi and Rory Cochrane putting in dominant performances which convey the depressing murderous times borne out of the heinous and greedy need for progress. White man / woman’s guilt drives the narrative as at first Bale’s soldier refuses to accompany his enemy back to his homeland. Is it more because of the deaths of his own men on the battlefield or because he does not want to face up to his own crimes against the Native Americans?

Image result for HOSTILES

There are no easy solutions in this glacial paced, beautifully shot Western. The audience is required to analyse the characters actions and make up one’s own mind. There are no black hats or white hats save for the denouement involving the four horsemen that drift over the horizon with death in their eyes. Even the Comanche horde who perpetrate the wicked attack on Pike’s family at the beginning, while unsympathetic, are a product of the barbarity committed by the American army. Overall, this is a genre-defying Western built more on character rather than all-out action. Each slow plot turn went against my expectations and that was a positive. It’s a rich, deep and heavy film which benefits from great performances and an incredible Max Richter score.

(Mark: 8 out of 11)



Stanley Kubrick and I do not have many things in common. But one of them is we both, when he was still with us, hate flying. From some limited research I learnt that Kubrick was in fact a qualified pilot but following an incident in the air it scared him to the extent he refused to fly again. The famous story of recreating the major parts of war-torn Vietnam in London because of this during the making of Full Metal Jacket (1987) has subsequently gone into cinematic folklore.


I hate flying for a number of reasons. Firstly, I am a science ignoramus and therefore cannot get my head around how that big hunk of metal can actually take off. Moreover, the fear of being trapped somewhere that in a crash situation means I am NOT getting out alive is too much to bear. I mean, on a boat or train or driving in your car you’ve got a fighting chance, but on a plane you’re up cloud creek without a paddle. More prosaically, I do NOT enjoy travelling on planes. Aside from being able to get a beer at seven in the morning, flying is just pointless to me. I don’t really even like holidays. You only have to come back and the relaxation you earned is ruined by the stress of having to fly back home.


I realise these are first world problems but for me to get on a plane is a big deal. Yet, my wife loves travelling and visiting new places so as an appeasement exercise I agreed to go to Copenhagen. What sweetened the deal though is we both love the films of Stanley Kubrick and, given it has yet to come to London, decided to go visit said exhibition before it ended in January 2018. I am glad I did. It was brilliant.


As the photos show every one of Kubrick’s completed and non-completed projects were given a wonderfully curated and considered display. There were: props; scripts; clapperboards, letters from fans; video and audio-clips; letters of protests from angry cinemagoers; costumes; set miniatures; and hundreds of production documents identifying the famed meticulousness of Kubrick’s productions. It was an Aladdin’s Cave of Kubrick’s filmic life and well worth getting lost in for several hours. One hopes it comes to London soon so I can go again!


So much has been written about Stanley Kubrick’s techniques, philosophies and film modus operandi, that rather than offer technical or thematic analysis I’d like to consider the personal impact Kubrick has had on my life. All I can say is that from an emotional level here is a filmmaker who has been with me as far back as I can remember. I recall watching The Killing (1956) on BBC2 in England when I was eleven and marvelling at the incredibly metronomic and overlapping structure. Then, at Christmas later that year, I recall watching Spartacus (1960) on TV with the family and enjoying the blood and guts and heroism of the lead character. I revelled in the Roman baddies being thwarted by a mere slave. When I found out a few years later they were directed by the same person I did not believe it; it blew my mind.


With this knowledge and experience in mind, I consciously or otherwise looked out for other works by Stanley Kubrick. My memory is hazy but in my late teens I found Paths of Glory (1957) showing, no doubt on BBC2 (we still only had four channels then in England), and I recorded it on VHS and watched it over and over. Knowing nothing of the filmmaking process I was impacted by the incredible tracking shots putting us in the heart of the action. Timothy Carey, who stole the show as a vicious criminal in The Killing, again really stood out in this classic WWI anti-war film. But like in Spartacus, Kirk Douglas was fierce in his performance and his noble character protests against the injustice of the ruling powers within the poisonous French hierarchy.


One film of Kubrick’s I never quite got into was Lolita (1962). I tried to read the novel many years ago but my young brain found it impenetrable.  Similarly, the film is a very dark comedy with a risqué theme of illicit romance and sexual awakening. The film was very controversial on release and Kubrick’s one film I have not watched many times but my feeling is that Kubrick was attracted to the weaknesses of masculinity in this work. Now, perhaps it is a sexist and lascivious film but I would need to re-watch it now to be able to fully commit to a clear critical view. One wonders if it would be made now given its context and complexity of gender and paedophilic representations. The PC, Neo-Millenials and feminist agendas would certainly have something to say about it and they would probably have a point. My feeling is though we should be allowed to make up our own mind on controversial works rather than carrying flaming torches on the internet threatening to burn anything that may be deemed controversial.


Another film which is sexual, but this time more symbolically when compared to Lolita, is the anti-nuclear masterpiece Dr Strangelove: or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Having watched it more recently and gained knowledge from the wonderful Kubrick exhibition, this scary and hilarious satire is filled with stupid, impotent and warring men bickering and squabbling over the future of a possible nuclear attack. It’s incredible to think that at the time of the Cold War a filmmaker could turn the fear of an atomic bomb attack into a comedy. But that is the genius of Stanley Kubrick because as an iconoclast he did just that. Like Paths of Glory, which was banned by the French government, the film garnered the ire of the military as Kubrick showed he wasn’t afraid to criticize those in power once again.


2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is another film which, like Lolita, was one I did not see until years later. It was rarely on the television and only watching subsequent cinematic re-releases have I basked in the glory of this science-fiction classic. Kubrick’s work has sometimes been accused of formalism and technique over emotion and arguably 2001: A Space Odyssey is his most accomplished technical achievement. Yet the emotion is derived from the intellectual and philosophical journey of early man to that of enigmatic ‘Star Child’. One wonders at the combination of music and images to create a startling dialectic of wonderment, awe and enigma. What it all means is open to many interpretations and that too was the genius of Kubrick; there was rarely an easy answer to the themes raised in his films.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

While I admire 2001: A Space Odyssey more from afar, his next film  A Clockwork Orange (1971), is one which I have close cultural connections to. Of course, it was released when I was a baby but on entering my late teens the controversy caused on its release had still managed to reach the chattering testosterone of the boys’ school I attended. Here was a violent, sexual, sexist, profane, dystopic, misanthropic film with blood and nudity that had been banned (later I would find it had been withdrawn by Kubrick himself) AND WE MUST NOT SEE! Obviously that meant we HAD to see it. Alas, I didn’t see it until one evening, as a surprised 22 year old, at the Scala Cinema in King’s Cross when it shown illegally as a ‘secret’ film. Subsequently, this action by the above-underground repertory cinema caused legal action by Warner Bros., eventually forcing the cinema to close.


Even without seeing A Clockwork Orange, before it’s bootleg London screening, I had immersed myself in the music on vinyl, bought posters, watched a theatrical presentation starring Phil Daniels; and of course read Burgess’s incredible novel a number of times. Myself and my brother loved the language and iconography and the danger of the piece. This is why censorship of all kinds can backfire because when you’re told you’re not allowed to see something it makes you want to watch it even more. Nonetheless, A Clockwork Orange would eventually be released openly and it still stands the test of time as a virulent and scathing attack on Governmental control of the proletariat. Of course, Alex the anti-hero is a psychopathic nightmare and a reflection of the brutal society established within the film and book. Again, Kubrick and Burgess’ original book can offer little in the way of solutions but rather a coruscating critique of humanity via an ultra-stylish and formidable cinematic and literary language.


Kubrick’s next film following the Clockwork Orange controversy was Barry Lyndon (1975). Kubrick had put his typically meticulous planning into a film about Napoleon Bonaparte only for this to fall down for commercial reasons and the budget was then put towards another period drama. I have to admit I did not see Barry Lyndon in full until it was shown on Film Four a few years ago. I subsequently saw it again last year – restored to a 35mm print – at the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square and was thoroughly absorbed by the tragic tale of the eponymous leading character. Kubrick’s insistent to shoot in low or candlelight gave the film a heavenly and picturesque glow; fascinating also was the structure of the film as Barry Lyndon’s life plays out via fate and a series of random misadventures. It reminded me somewhat of Forrest Gump (1994) where war and misfortune happen to and around him, while both films end similarly with familial tragedy. Many of Kubrick’s other films have rightly gained classic status with Barry Lyndon perhaps seen as a lesser film. But for me, the imagery and cinematography alone make it a masterpiece for me.


Like A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining was a film released around the time of the 1980s “video-nasty” era and I watched a lot of those films on VHS. This was the time where my love of horror was formed and despite the enigmatic ending being lost on a dopey 12 year-old, I loved this story of a psychotic Jack Nicholson going mad and attacking his family. It was only years later on further re-watches that I fully appreciated the macabre psychological subtlety of the unfolding detachment from reality, which occurs to Jack Torrance. Of course, everyone recalls the “Here’s Johnny!” moment and is scared to death by his twisted actions, but everything before that is brilliant, as it masterfully builds and creates dread amidst iconic images including: the twin girls, red-patterned carpet, the maze and the creepy barman in the Overlook Hotel. Stephen King, apparently doesn’t rate Kubrick’s The Shining but I think he is wrong. I know he changed King’s excellent novel to fit his own vision but Kubrick’s The Shining stands the test of time today.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Kubrick’s final two films, Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999) thankfully came out when I was old enough to see them at the cinema. Both are what I consider classic Kubrick mirrored structures. That is they are split into two long acts rather than the traditional three-act structure present in most classical Hollywood films. In Full Metal Jacket we establish the rigours of training Marines involving, from the film’s point-of-view, the dehumanizing stripping of humanity in order to turn men into killing machines. The second-half places such men into the Vietnam War and finds them lost in a black mirror of death and despair, attempting to make sense of the carnage around them. Such themes as the follies of war and damaging arrogance of those in rule are prevalent throughout his work including this film, Barry Lyndon, Dr Strangelove and Paths of Glory.

Having failed to get projects such as The Aryan Papers and Artificial Intelligence to the screen his next feature, Eyes Wide Shut, alas, was Kubrick’s final film. It benefits from close to career best performances from then married Nicole Kidman and Hollywood star Tom Cruise. I recall seeing it at a cinema in Fulham Road and my first reaction was it seemed unreal and ungrounded. The explicit sex scenes seemed stagey and were exploitational; plus Nicole Kidman’s acting aside the whole thing did not work for me on any level. Of course though the film, like many of Kubrick’s works, need to be viewed more than once for the nuance and subtle psychologies at work to seep through into one’s psyche. On further views of Eyes Wide Shut, the dark comedy and tragedy at work contextualises the sexual depravity on show revealing a dreamlike structure and strong moral compass which leads you to the conclusion hedonism and freedom of physical expression are empty vessels and vacuous pursuits compared to the relative safety of love, family and marriage.


Walking round the Stanley Kubrick exhibition was a fantastic experience. Not only to revel in the artistic bricolage of the genius filmmakers’ oeuvre and history, but also to tread through my own memories of growing older watching Kubrick’s works. This and Copenhagen as a whole made it worth my while getting on a plane and suffering the stress of flight to venture to Denmark; where something totally not rotten was going on.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.



Thoughts on Cinema, TV and Life!