Collateral Beauty

David Frankel’s Collateral Beauty, featuring an all-star cast, is the story of Howard (Will Smith), a man in suffering following the death of his daughter, whose employees, Whit, Claire and Simon (Edward Norton, Kate Winslet and Michael Peña), fearing the fall of their livelihoods, find themselves compromised as they hatch a plan. Finding that Howard has been writing letters to abstractions – Death, Time and Love – the three employees call upon three struggling actors, Brigitte, Raffi and Aimee (Helen Mirren, Jacob Latimore and Keira Knightley) to personify these concepts and confront Howard. Meanwhile, Howard seeks the help of support group leader Madeleine (Naomie Harris) as the plot unfolds.

The narrative seems to have some familiarity to that of Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, with Death, Time and Love comparable to the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet To Come, respectively. It is no coincidence that the film takes place at Christmastime. But just because it may draw inspiration from a story that’s been retold again and again, that doesn’t mean there are no surprises. The plot is structured differently, Howard’s emotional need differs from that of Scrooge, and many of the characters seem to be original inventions. Whit, Claire and Simon have themes or subplots associated with them relative to the role of the actor they mentor; in fact there’s not as much Will Smith in this movie as one would expect. There are a couple of revelations that perhaps would have been better left ambiguous or implied, one in particular towards the end involving a scene in the hospital. Nonetheless, the ending is emotional. The film isn’t necessarily hard to dissect but its themes are woven in – no scene goes to waste.

Everyone’s acting here is superb. In the prologue Will Smith seems like a life-loving man, so the transition to his depressed face hits like a brick. His expression, intensity magnified with use of makeup, has great effectiveness. Brigitte, Raffi and Aimee are quite enjoyable. Each of their characters has personality traits relevant to their role, like Aimee’s conscientiousness and Raffi’s impatience. All the actors give charming performances and their characters have different personalities, identities, wants and concerns.

The film is beautifully lit and coloured. The costumes stand out so everyone has a distinguishable look. The costumes for Love, Death and Time, especially, seem appropriate to what their modernised personifications would look like – if they had great fashion sense.

Collateral Beauty is a wonderful little picture. There is beauty in the simplicity of the concept and structure of this film. The acting is top-notch, the characters are enjoyable, the drama is compelling and emotional, the story is well told and the way it is told is clever and inventive. No scene is surplus. It is beautiful visually and in its execution, with an advised focus on story rather than the obstacles of a single protagonist. Well-recommended.

Passengers

Morten Tyldum’s Passengers has a beautifully simple concept. On a spaceship carrying over 5,200 people in hibernation, a stasis pod malfunction awakens one Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) ninety years before reaching the ship’s destination, with no way of going back to sleep. After a year of near isolation, his only company the futuristic Roombas and comforting words of Arthur, the charming android bartender (Michael Sheen) – while growing a beard more magnificent than that of yours truly – Jim is joined by Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence). The two build a relationship together but secrets are revealed while malfunctions on the ship gradually become more noticeable to the point of jeopardy.

The acting is good all around. All the emotions and intensities of which are suitable to situations right down to the little facial gestures. The performances of the human characters are charming and emotional, ranging from happily in love to being at the end of their ropes. The audience sympathises with both Jim and Aurora at the moment of crisis when the rift is formed between them, however morally compromised one party may be.

Visually, the film is well designed, grabbing one’s attention immediately with the look of distant black space clouds mixed with white stars in an interesting artist’s depiction of the galaxy. The design of the ship, the Avalon, is quite unique and science fiction-y. The hibernation pods look weirdly similar to those from Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979), all set up in circles like the petals of a flower. Lighting on the interiors has effort put into it; one can notice warm and cool light on either side of an onscreen subject. One can’t ignore the costumes, either. Jennifer Lawrence in particular dresses glamorously. Two conventionally beautiful people, in designer clothes, living in the height of luxury – the wish fulfillment is strong with this movie. At some point they’re said to be an unlikely couple, but given that this is what Hollywood couples often look like, that seems like a disingenuous statement.

The film does make some mistakes, particularly when it comes to science. Usually these mistakes happen around spacewalking scenes in what is supposed to be zero-G; for example when Chris Pratt sheds a tear or sweats, the liquid rolls down his face instead of free-floating inside his helmet. And then there’s the time when the couple goes for a spacewalk after a romantic French dinner. Hope that cuisine was all in paste form! Then there’s one or two instances of bad continuity, like the time JLaw punches Pratt in the face several times – punches him hard, too – and he doesn’t have so much as a bruise or a spot of blood. Either they forgot to put makeup on him or Chris Pratt is so handsome that he’s immune to outward signs of physical injury.

Passengers is a very attractive-looking movie in terms of visual design. The story deals with several themes: loneliness, guilt, fixing things rather than replacing them, the latter of which is resolved quite subtly. There is only a small cast, at least for the majority of the film, which is all it really needs. However, four big-name stars and a luxurious contemporary sci-fi location really milk the financers for the film’s 110 million dollar budget. Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence perfectly portray their characters and communicate the emotions of which to the audience. It takes its time with its buildup, whether it’s Jim’s year in isolation to the ship slowly becoming more hazardous. It’s a relaxing experience, all in all, though not without conflict. The story has a simple concept, it is easy to follow and understand, though admittedly Hollywood wish fulfillment. It has a nice resolution but the end of the climax is too much of an easy Hollywood ending, one that pushes one’s suspension of disbelief if one is being honest. It’s mostly the first and second acts that hold the most merit. Not great in hindsight, but it is an entertaining effort.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Gareth Edwards’ Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a stand-alone prequel to the original Star Wars trilogy, its story occurring immediately before the events of George Lucas’ Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977). With the completed construction of the Death Star, outlaw Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), daughter of the planet-killer’s architect, is brought together with a team of rebels and strangers on a journey that will lead them on a mission to find the Death Star’s weakness.

First to join Jyn in her adventure are Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and a reprogrammed Imperial droid called K-2SO (Alan Tudyk). These two are basically the Han and Chewy of this film. With the exception of Jyn, Cassian and K-2, it is not an easy task to remember the names of the characters. While infiltrating an alien desert city, our heroes are joined by Chirrut Îmwe (Donnie Yen), the (arguably stereotypical) blind Chinese martial artist, his best friend Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), who packs some serous heat, and Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), a nervous pilot and defector from the Empire. While these characters may lack memorable names, their individual character designs make them recognisable and easy to tell apart. There is, however, a problem with their development. We don’t spend much time getting to know the members of the team, and aside from some mannerisms or downplayed displays of temperament, their personalities are only just distinguishable. The exception of course is K-2SO, who has absolutely no facial expressiveness but is written with a clear personality, and that is precisely because his character is written, within the story, to speak his mind so he makes no secret of his opinions. This also makes him the funniest character without necessarily resorting to an extreme for the purposes of comic relief.

On the supporting cast is the villain Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn), Jyn’s father Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen) – who may have been named after Galen Marik from the Star Wars: The Force Unleashed videogames (just like Starkiller Base was) – and cyborg rebel Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker). One might think these are also a little unexpressive, though that is arguable, but like the others they are not without instances of passion. Krennic is merciless, ill tempered and gunning for authority, and Mendelsohn does a good job of showing the character’s composure failing under aggression. Mikkelsen is always quite a stone-faced actor, but he is portraying a serious character, reluctant to yield to the Empire’s demands and build the Death Star for them, having to sacrifice himself for the lesser of two evils. We don’t get much time for Forest Whitaker’s character but he is at least represented to have legitimate care for Jyn and to make difficult decisions, a soft side that contrasts to his ruthless treatment of Bodhi Rook.

When Rogue One’s screenwriter Chris Weitz tweeted, “Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization” – to which former writer on the project Gary Whitta added “Opposed by a multicultural group led by brave women” – in relation to the recent US Presidential election, controversy arose around the ethnically diverse casting, female lead, and white male villain. The response, at least in the minority, was that of accusations of a political agenda, particularly of a sexually or racially divisive nature, and a hashtag campaign to boycott or “dump” Star Wars. Keep in mind that J. J. Abrams’ Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (2015) had a female white Brit and a male black American in the lead and the response was largely enthusiastic. Had it not been for the writers’ comments on Twitter, the response to them would likely not have surfaced to such a degree as to be considered newsworthy.

Weitz later apologised for “connecting an innocent escape to ugly politics” and Disney CEO Bob Iger said there was no intent to make a political statement through Rogue One, that the issue had been blown out of proportion, and that he was proud for making the most ethnically diverse main cast in Disney history. Good on him. As inappropriate was the attitude used to compare Star Wars to US politics, Weitz and Whitta did bring up a good point. The Alliance/Rebellion consists of several interplanetary cultures and alien species (even if some of the aliens have been said to resemble racial stereotypes), and is led by female leaders like Princess Leia and Mon Mothma, while the Empire is basically space Nazis…with black Stormtroopers—okay, bad example! Darth Vader’s helmet is even designed to be a mesh between that of a Japanese samurai and a Nazi soldier. The point is, if anything the female lead and diverse cast reflects a subtextual theme that dates as far back as the original trilogy.

Speaking of the original trilogy, the film includes several appearances and cameos from characters and visual themes from the first three films. This includes Mon Mothma, played by Genevieve O’Reilly as she reprises her role from the making of Revenge of the Sith (George Lucas, 2005). O’Reilly plays the role with gentle authoritativeness similar to that of Caroline Blakiston’s portrayal, but the funny thing is the time of this story’s events aren’t all that long ago from Return of the Jedi (Richard Marquand, 1983), so Mothma looks a bit younger than she ought to. Darth Vader makes a return to the film series, voiced by the one and only James Earl Jones and physically portrayed by Spencer Wilding and Daniel Naprous, as the iconic villain makes a couple of appearances. Vader’s costume is fantastic as always, and his presence, voice and projection reminds one of how intimidating the character is. In this instance he seems to be represented with a slight sense of humour, which seems slightly out of place or out of character, although it is just the one time and it doesn’t necessarily diminish the film in any way.

Surprise! The film also sees the return of Grand Moff Tarkin (Stephen Stanton (voice) and Guy Henry), the man in charge of the Death Star, originally played by Peter Cushing in Episode IV – A New Hope (George Lucas, 1977). In this case, computer imagery is used to replicate Cushing’s likeness. While we know this is CGI because Peter Cushing passed away in 1994, and our minds then look for the telltale signs as such, it is a convincing likeness. It reminds one of the animation style used in Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf (2007), where the CGI characters accurately resembled their voice actors. Some sources have perceived this so-called ‘resurrection’ of Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin to be disrespectful to the actor, so whether it is to be praised is somewhat up for debate. At this time one is of the opinion that the method used to recreate a well-known character from the first film in this way is at least impressive.

The appearances of Mon Mothma, Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, as well as many others – including classic Imperial vehicles such as the camel-shaped AT-AT Walkers from The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and the two-legged AT-ST “chicken” Walkers from Return of the Jedi – are attempts at fan service, or could be ways to link Rogue One to A New Hope and onward. In fact, the Stormtroopers are so typically bad at shooting that non-Jedi melee fighters can engage and incapacitate them. Twice!

You know what’s not like your typical Star Wars? The colour pallet. With the exception of scenes aboard Imperial ships, which are shiny black with white lights anyway, most of the film has very low lighting with low colour saturation. There is a desert planet, where everything is mostly bright brown and yellow, but for most the first two thirds of the film the heroes are always in some dark and gloomy environment, whether it’s in their spaceship or on alien worlds. These planets have atmospheric feels to them but they don’t have much of a fantasy quality, basically being like plain old Earth settings. At times it gets so bad that you can barely see. This contrasts greatly from the use of light and colour in just about every other Star Wars film. It’s only during the climax, which takes place on a planet resembling the Maldives (where the scene was shot), when one learns to appreciate colours again.

So, how is the story? Going into the movie, one may feel they have a vague idea of how the story is going to resolve; the Death Star won’t be destroyed because it’s going to be around for the events of the first film. The heroes hop to different worlds, something is said or done, and we move onto the next one. It feels a bit like “chess piece storytelling”, going from one place after the other, rarely staying in one place to learn more than one thing. There are emotional moments with the Rogue One team during the climax, one by one, but it lacks a big enough impact on the audience because they haven’t spent enough time getting to know these characters. One won’t deny there is a sense of urgency and threat in the action scenes and the story at large.

In conclusion, Rogue One is passable. It has things that fans will recognise as to appeal to them. Unfortunately the colour grading is not very attractive, and while the story isn’t terrible – the film does try – it is quite lackluster. It’s basically an origin story that no one was curious about. The chief characters have only one or two layers of personality traits and appealing qualities, for the most part, and while they look discernable the overall seriousness of the performances blends them in with each other. The film does seem to be made in the spirit of Star Wars – it’s not unwatchable. Its action scenes too are quite entertaining. That said, as a spinoff (particularly a film in canon with the official series) it doesn’t quite do enough to make itself indispensable to the franchise. If you go for all the old winks to the original trilogy, you’ll get them, just not in an especially compelling story.

Newt Scamander is Doctor Who!

Upon seeing the trailer for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, one might look at Eddie Redmayne’s acting as the protagonist Newt Scamander and his costume/character design, and find some humour in seeing a resemblance to the Doctor from the BBC’s long-running science fantasy series Doctor Who, in particular the Matt Smith version: a quirky and awkward British figure with bad but noticeable fashion sense. It’s especially funny if you saw the Eddie Redmayne sketch on BBC Children in Need 2016, which depicted Redmayne in costume on the set of the film and, at one point, talking on the phone with Peter Capaldi’s version of the Doctor (and his hastily expositional jokes). Seeing these two differently awkward characters together like this makes it feel like an interaction between two incarnations of the same Time Lord. Upon watching the film, more similarities are made apparent, leading one to declare to oneself, “This is Doctor Who! I’m watching Doctor Who!”

Now, this article is not meant to give evidence to a fan theory that might say Eddie Redmayne’s character in the film is literally one and the same as the Doctor, or even any old Time Lord, nor that the Wizarding World is actually the planet Gallifrey because our minds would burn like Donna Noble regaining her memories. This is simply an informal comparison pointing out similarities that Fantastic Beasts shares with the science fantasy series. (This is also not a full critique of Doctor Who, either as a whole or on the progression of “New Who”, since such a monumental subject would be better discussed in another article, assuming we venture down that road, peer through that looking glass and open that can of worms.)

David Yates’ Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the prequel to, and ninth installation of, the Harry Potter film series based on J. K. Rowling’s novels, and is David Yates’ fifth film in the franchise, written for the screen by J. K. Rowling herself, who has announced that this will be the first in a five-part series of films. Right away we have another comparison: no one will let these franchises die.

Newt Scamander is a traveller who conceals his identity/species from most of the human population, just like the Doctor. He has a magic wand, which is somewhat comparable to the Doctor’s sonic screwdriver, and, like the TARDIS, which transports the Doctor, Scamander carries a briefcase that is bigger on the inside than on the outside as to contain an environment of sorts within. Scamander also points out that wizards and non-magic folk have subtly different physiologies; for example, wizards have stronger bones than humans and we already know of their (potentially) longer lifespans. Time Lords have been shown having enhanced durability, and longevity is one of the key characteristics of their species. Scamander also finds a companion in this story, Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a No-Maj who stumbles onto Scamander’s hijinks and through him is introduced to another world, an amazing world he never conceived of, much like the Doctor has done for his human companions. There’s also a goofy gesture where Scamander pulls a helmet out of his suitcase, almost seemingly out of nowhere (like a magic satchel), and makes Kowalski wear it to compensate for his human physiology when finding a potentially dangerous creature, which seems a lot like something Matt Smith’s Doctor would do to Rory Williams. And yes, before you mention, they both wear bowties. That’s irrelevant! Bowties are overrated.

Taking these parallels into account, how does this Harry Potter film hold up as an episode of Doctor Who? To a once avid fan of the show, it feels like a fresh start. As Doctor Who continues for nearly its thirteenth year in a row, its fanbase practically at war with itself online, there are several factors as to why a portion of the fans can feel alienated; for example:

• Conflicting or ambiguous demands from different sects of fans to update the show, make it more relevant, and/or replicate “Classic Who”
• Creators exploiting the show’s “anywhere, any time” story engine, overusing their ideas, their supporting characters and catchphrases, and crudely mixing and matching genres and subgenres, all generally to create just because they have the power to do so
• Questionable writing and inconsistent aesthetics as the series goes on
• The representation of the Doctor (not limited to most recently the unrelatable nature of his apparent omnicompetence and fix for most anything)
• The time at which an audience is introduced to the series and their reception to the change of tone as the series continues

There is a portion of the fanbase that defends the show regardless of constant shifts in quality and identity, watching either out of a sense of obligation or to continually observe situations without limitations.

But the purpose of bringing this topic up is not to debate those who continue to enjoy the show. The question is: Why is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a breath of fresh air to a former Doctor Who fan who has drawn a comparison between the two? For one: the main character. This article has already compared Smith’s Doctor to Redmayne’s Scamander, but Scamander’s seems like much less of a forced performance, or at least a more naturalistic one. His awkwardness is humanising, especially as the story develops, rather than (generally) becoming progressively alienating. There’s a bit of silliness here and there, but since it’s not overplayed it’s all well and good. The dialogue doesn’t feel stilted and the characters feel like characters. The protagonist’s companions don’t romanticise him to the point of excess, instead simply experiencing the wonder of the worlds they are introduced to. Kowalski may be grateful to Scamander but he doesn’t go out of his way to be poetic or philosophical about him or the setting. Scamander is clever but he doesn’t have some impossible foresight or a fix for everything (at least not on the level of, say, Capaldi’s Doctor), therefor the audience can actually get invested in the character overcoming challenges and obstacles, and most refreshingly he’s not completely full of his own ego.

Taking into account that these texts are, or belong to, two unrelated entities, the film feels like a good unofficial one-off revival of the series. It is a single adventure, taking place in a single historical setting, wherein is told a relatively simple and focused story: a group of creatures are set loose in the modern world where they are out of place and must be brought back, but matters are complicated when other factions interfere and a dark entity causes casualties throughout the city. The concept is easily something that could be a Doctor Who episode. In my opinion, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the best episode of Doctor Who that I’ve seen in a long time.