Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 May 2016

Located on the eastern outskirts of Central Park in New York City, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the largest art museum in the United States.  A record 6.3 million people walked through its front doors in 2015.  The Met, as it is more commonly known, is closed on only 4 days each year – Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, and the first Monday in May.

While those first three dates will make sense, the last may leave some scratching their heads.  The reasons are explored in this riveting documentary from director Andrew Rossi.  Page One: Inside The New York Times showed that Rossi is intrigued by major institutions and what goes on behind the scenes.  That same curiosity was the key reason why he “yes” to this equally interesting opportunity.

The First Monday in May is centred on The Costume Institute, one of the numerous departments within the Met.  We follow curator Andrew Bolton as he plans a huge 2015 exhibition highlighting the influence of Chinese aesthetics on Western fashion.  The work begins months in advance and it’s fascinating to learn how many issues need to be resolved and how much thought goes into each tiny detail.  Bolton is a smooth, sharp operator.

The film’s other major narrative relates to the title itself.  On the first Monday in May each year, the Met hosts a fundraising gala to benefit the Costume Institute.  It is described as “the Super Bowl of social fashion events” and brings together a seemingly endless list of celebrities, politicians and sports stars.  Members from the public can attend (provided they have a spare $25,000) and the event raises more than $10 million each year.  It is all organised by Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and a team of passionate staffers.

Andrew Rossi has shot some amazing footage that makes this a compelling view from start to finish.  There’s seldom a dull moment.  Many would be familiar with the parodied version of Anna Wintour in The Devil Wears Prada (played by Meryl Streep) but here we see the real Anna and are offered an insight into her world.  She even touches on her reputation as an “ice queen” and speaks of the difficulties of being a woman trying to make it in a man’s world.

The film is also trying to stimulate a discussion about art, fashion and commerce.  Does fashion belong in a museum?  Can all fashion be described as art?  Does the hosting of a celebrity-filled ball drag undermine the artistic intentions of the Met?  Those weighing into the debate include designers Jean-Paul Gaultier and John Galliano, and filmmakers Baz Luhrmann and Kar-Wai Wong.

It’s hard to believe how much access was granted during the filmmaking process.  We see Wintour keenly discussing seating arrangements for the Met Gala (poor Josh Hartnett).  We see boardroom meetings where Bolton debates the exhibition’s content and design.  We see technicians accept delivery of dresses from around the world and prepare them for display.  We see celebrities arrive on the red carpet (Larry David a highlight) and then view the newly opened exhibition.  All of this has been skilfully edited into a tight 90 minutes.

I was in New York City last month but didn’t get a chance to visit The Met.  Having now seen The First Monday in May and been energised by the museum’s content, it’s a decision I regret.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 April 2016

Tired of superhero movies?  Brace yourself because there’s a lot more to come.  Captain America: Civil War marks the first movie in “phase three” of the Marvel cinematic universe.  A total of 10 movies will be released over the next 3 years with everything coming together in a two-part Avengers flick entitled Infinity War.

The opening third of this latest instalment has a strong political flavour.  It’s becoming an overused theme in superhero films but The Avengers find themselves losing favour with the public.  It may sound hard to believe given the number of times they’ve saved the world and defeated a zealous villain.  The problem is the rising civilian death toll.  The King of Sokovia sums it up best – “victory at the expense of the innocent is no victory at all.”

A proposition is therefore put to The Avengers by the United States Secretary of State.  He sees the danger in them having “unlimited power with no supervision.”  In searching for a middle ground, he is happy for The Avengers to continue operating but they must now follow a set of rules and take direction from a governing body controlled by the United Nations.  More than 100 countries around the world support the idea.

It’s at this point where the division begins.  Iron Man (Downey Jr) knows of the dangers of too much power (refer back to Age of Ultron) and is happy to endorse the concept.  He is joined by Black Widow (Johansson), War Machine (Cheadle) and the Scarlet Witch (Olsen).  Vision (Bettany) shares a similar view and puts forward an compelling argument about the growing number of villains looking to take down The Avengers.  Does strength breed challengers?

On the other side of the fence is the faction led by Captain America (Evans).  He’s a little more “old fashioned” and believes that having been gifted with super powers, he should have the right to choose where and when he can use them.  Those loyal to his cause include Falcon (Mackie), Hawkeye (Renner) and Ant-Man (Rudd).

When watching an AFL or NRL match, there are brief moments where a fight breaks out between the two teams.  It normally involves a bit of pushing, shoving, and jumper grabbing.  There’s a lot of passion involved but the players are smart enough not to do anything silly or life threatening.  They’ll often shrug it off and shake hands at the end of the game.

That’s not the case in Captain America: Civil War and it makes for strange viewing.  There are several action sequences where these characters are beating each other as hard as they can.  I’m not sure what they’re trying to achieve.  Are they trying to kill their friends… or merely injure them?  It’s hard to take seriously and there’s not much in the way of tension.

The good news is that there is a more interesting storyline running in parallel.  The Winter Soldier (Stan) has been accused of being the mastermind behind a terrorist attack in Vienna.  He proclaims his innocence but few believe him.  It sets in motion an elaborate manhunt that involves two new additions to the series – Daniel Bruhl as Helmut Zero and Chadwick Boseman as the Black Panther.

There are more characters and subplots that a Game of Thrones episode but somehow, directors Anthony and Joe Russo have managed to mash it all together into something that works.  The political elements grabbed me most but there are still plenty of laughs for those looking for light hearted entertainment.  Spider-Man (Holland) stands out best in that regard and is hilariously chided for talking too much during the fight sequences.

With many storylines left open as the closing credits start to roll, Captain America: Civil War feels like the first episode in a lengthy mini-series.  It sets the stage, offers a few surprises, and teases audiences with a glimpse of what lies ahead.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2016

Based on actual events, this film is the true story of Florence Foster Jenkins – a wealthy heiress from New York who became a renowned opera singer in the early 20^th Century.  Jenkins was not known for her talent.  Rather, people flocked to see her perform because of how bad she was.

It’s odd to be talking about this story so soon after the release of Marguerite.  The narrative is largely the same.  My plot overview in the opening paragraph is largely a “cut and paste” job from my review two weeks ago.  The major point of difference is that Florence Foster Jenkins has been shot in the English language and comes with star power.  Both factors will have a positive impact on the box-office.

She’s flooded with scripts every year but Meryl Streep chose this particular role because her character is so “heartbreakingly funny”.  Jenkins liked to sing and her husband (Grant) allowed her to do so at small parties and get-togethers.  Friends of Jenkins applauded at her performances because they admired her courage.  Critics wrote positive reviews because they were paid to do so.  It was a giant charade that continued for years.

Things became immensely more complicated when Jenkins’ started to believe more in her own ability.  At the age of 76, she agreed to perform at New York City’s Carnegie Hall in front of 3,000 people on 25 October 1944.  It would be her one and only public appearance.  Despite the rumours of her dreadful singing voice, the event sold out weeks in advance and attracted celebrities such as Marge Champion and Cole Porter.

While Marguerite had darker undertones, writer Nicholas Martin and director Stephen Frears (The Queen, Philomena) have gone with a “lighter” approach for their adaptation.  It’s designed more as a crowd-pleaser and doesn’t want to probe too deeply into the intent of the respective characters.

The performances make the film more than worthwhile though.  Hugh Grant plays the charming husband who keeps his cards very close to his chest.  Meryl Streep has the fun of signing as poorly as possible.  As hard as it is to believe, both leading actors are overshadowed by comedian Simon Helberg who steals every scene as Jenkins’ well-paid pianist.  A mix of both nerves and giggles, he struggles to keep a straight face during rehearsals.

Two films is probably enough to sum up the life of Florence Foster Jenkins.  In the same vein as film director Ed Wood, she will be remembered for reasons she probably wouldn’t appreciate.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2016

Screenwriters use plot devices to further the storyline.  Sometimes they feel credible.  Sometimes they do not.  The main device in A Month Of Sundays fits into that later category.  Frank (LaPaglia) is a real estate agent who gets a phone call from a woman who sounds like his mother.  That itself isn’t unusual until we learn that Frank’s mother has been dead for more than a year.

No, this isn’t some sci-fi time travel movie.  The person at the other end of the phone is an elderly woman named Sarah (Blake) and she called his number by mistake.  Frank could have spoken, hung up, and left it at that.  It’s what I’d do.  Instead, he’s intrigued by this person who brings back memories of his mother and he decides to meet her.

It’s a bizarre way of bringing two characters together but thankfully, it does develop into something meaningful.  Frank is in need of change, direction.  He’s not particularly good at his job despite the encouragement of his friend/boss, Phillip (John Clarke).  He recently separated from his wife (Justine Clarke) and he’s losing touch with his teenage son (Crowther) who grows more distant each week.

Frank and Sarah are from different worlds but they find comfort in opening up about their respective troubles.  Director Matthew Saville (Felony) is following in the footsteps of other filmmakers and highlighting the value and importance of human interaction.  Internalising our problems is seldom the right approach to take.

Parts of the film don’t come quite come together.  The relationship between Frank, his son, and his ex-wife is the best example.  Given these characters are so critical to his life going forward, it’s strange that they appear in so few scenes.  There’s also a noticeable lack of backstory to explain why their relationships are fractured. 

That aside, the interaction between Anthony LaPaglia and Julia Blake in the leading roles makes the film more than worthwhile.  You’re watching two gifted actors work beautifully alongside each other and it adds up to a moving climax.  To help lighten the film’s tone, John Clarke also wins points as a real estate agent kingpin (complete with a giant billboard) who doesn’t mince his words.

Shot in Adelaide and selected to screen last year at the Toronto Film Festival, A Month of Sundays may not leave a lasting impression but it’s likely to hold your attention.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2016

There’s a scene in Good Will Hunting where maths professor (Stellan Skarsgård) is trying to convince a psychologist (Robin Williams) to take on a new patient (Matt Damon).  As part of his argument, he compares Damon’s character to an Indian mathematician from 100 years earlier who he describes as an “unparalleled genius” despite having no formal education.  The guy’s name was Srinivasa Ramanujan and now, 20 years after the success of Good Will Hunting, he finally gets his own movie.

The story of Ramanujan will be new to many.  He doesn’t quite have the profile of other 20^th century masterminds such as Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking (who were both subject to biopics in 2014).  It’s easy to see why first-time writer-director Matt Brown was attracted though.  Ramanujan was the ultimate underdog and had to jump many hurdles on the path to recognition.

Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) takes on the title role and the film begins in India where a young Ramanujan is trying to find work as an accountant in southern India.  It’s clear that he has an incredible gift when it comes to numbers.  He doesn’t need an abacus but his boss asks him to keep one on his desk to at least give the impression that he knows what he’s doing.

With no access to a proper education in Indian, Ramanujan had gathered most of his knowledge through books.  He read an array of mathematical textbooks and started developing his own theorems and equations.  The founder of the Indian Mathematical Society recognised Ramanujan’s gift and used his contacts to get Ramanujan a place at the University of Cambridge in England.  He would study under the tutelage of mathematician G.H. Hardy (played by Jeremy Irons).

It’s at Cambridge where most of the film takes place.  From his first day on campus, Ramanujan is itching to get his works published but others propose a more cautious approach.  Hardy wants him to prepare detailed proofs so that his theories can be checked and verified.  In contrast, Ramanujan sees himself as an “artist” and doesn’t want be bogged down with remedial paperwork.  It’d like watching Picasso painting a masterpiece and then asking him for a 100 page essay on how he did it.

That wasn’t the only hurdle Ramanujan had to overcome.  On campus, he was continually belittled by other professors for his Indian heritage and his lack of education.  A lack of friends and strong sense of homesickness only compounded his troubles.  In travelling to England in search of a career, he had left behind a loving wife (Bhise) and meddling mother back in India.

Patel and Irons both give strong performances but the arguments between their respective characters become repetitive.  Neither wants to yield despite obvious merit in each other’s position.  Further, the subplot involving his family back home in India is distracting and needed to be cut or given more importance.

The Man Who Knew Infinity is an interesting tale on paper but Matt Brown struggles to bring that same sensation to the screen.