Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2014

A small Belgian solar panel factory has 17 employees.  One of them, Sandra (Cotillard), suffers a stress-related breakdown and is granted extended leave.  During her absence, the business goes through a slight downturn.  Management believe the work can comfortably be performed by just 16 employees.

Instead of making the tough decision himself, the boss shirks the responsibility and throws it over to the staff by way of a vote on a Friday afternoon.  They have two choices.  Option one – they can agree to terminate Sandra and with the cost savings generated, they will all receive a bonus of 1,000 euro.  Option two – they can agree to keep Sandra but they will not receive any bonus.

The vote takes places without Sandra’s knowledge and the overwhelming majority go with the first option.  The bonus was simply too great to pass up.  Sandra gets wind of the decision via a phone call and is immediately overcome with emotion.  Her income is critically important to her husband and two children.  Without Sandra’s job at the factory, they will most likely default on their mortgage and be forced into public housing.

Sandra confronts management and requests a second vote.  She argues that the employees were pressured into choosing that particular option and further, she was not present so as to put forward her own arguments.  It is agreed that a second vote will take place on Monday morning by way of a secret ballot.  It leaves Sandra with 48 hours to get in touch with her 16 co-workers and try to convince a majority that she deserves to stay.

My attention wavered during several chunks of Two Days, One Night.  Once the premise is established, it becomes repetitive in the way that Sandra tracks down and speaks to the other employees.  She outlines her position and they fire back with their own views.  Some throw their support behind her.  Others do not.  It leaves Sandra wondering if she’s in a lose-lose situation.  Even if she can win over a small majority, how easy will it be to work with those upset that they’ve lost their important bonus?

Why the film is worth your time is for its exploration of mental illness.  Sandra is already battling depression and these events have the potential to further rupture her self-esteem.  It’s a wild roller coaster.  Her spirits are instantly lifted when she speaks to a colleague who agrees to vote for her.  All that positivity is lost an hour later when she speaks to someone else with an opposing view.  It leaves her husband, Manu (Rongione), scrambling to keep his wife upbeat.

After premiering at Cannes, the film moved on to the 2014 Sydney Film Festival where it defeated 11 other films to win the Official Competition.  It was recently announced as Belgium’s entry for the foreign language category at the 2015 Academy Awards and many pundits believe it will be nominated.  Much of the praise is being directed at French actress Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose, Inception) who is terrific in the leading role.  She draws on a wide range of emotions and her passionate performance with resonate with many.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 October 2014

It’s April 1945 and Sergeant Don Collier (Pitt) is leading a small group of U.S. soldiers as part of the broader effort to win the war.  He tells a fellow soldier that “I started this war killing Germans in Africa, then I killed Germans in France, and now I’m killing Germans in Germany.”  The allies have the upper hand but Collier knows there is much more work to be done before the Germans are defeated.

Collier and his team operate an M4 Sherman tank, which they’ve named “Fury”, and the film follows a series of missions that they’ve been given to complete.  These include the rescue of a U.S. platoon trapped in an open field and the guarding of a crossroad against an advancing German army.  The guys know they’ve been lucky so far.  They’ve seen many tanks destroyed and many fellow soldiers killed.  They put on a tough face but the weight of the war is starting to take its toll on them physically and mentally.

There are some fierce, bloody battles in Fury but at its heart, this is a character-driven drama that centres on the dynamic between two different people.  Collier is the experienced “veteran” who has seen it all.  Norman (Lerman) is the newcomer – a quiet clerical worker who has been asked to join Collier’s crew as an assistant driver to a lack of available soldiers.  He can type 60 words a minute… but he has never set foot in a tank and has never shot a gun.

Collier realises that Norman is a liability.  He and his crew (LaBeouf, Peña, Bernthal) have been together a long time and he’d made a lofty promise that he’d keep them all alive.  He tells Norman straight up that “you’re getting in the way of that.”  There are no other options though.  Collier has to find a way to connect with the fearful Norman and transform him into a battle-ready soldier.  There’s one piece of advice that resonates strongly – “ideals are peaceful, history is violent.”

There are times when the film is too staged.  For example, there’s a scene where the soldiers befriend two German women in a small town.  It’s a moment where there’s too much going on at once – Norman discovering his first love, Collier showing a softer side, and the other soldiers revealing their true nature through the power of alcohol.  It didn’t feel authentic.  The same can be said of the climax to this sequence (which I won’t reveal).

Like other war films, Fury covers the familiar themes of heroism, comradery and brutality.  It’s also tapping into our love of underdog stories.  There are plenty of instances in this movie where these characters could have been killed.  Instead, we see them rely on their own physically and a hell of a lot of luck to get the job done.  It reminded me a little of last year’s Lone Survivor in that regard.

Fury’s most impressive attributes are the great leading performances from Brad Pitt (we all know who he is so I won’t list any credits) and Logan Lerman (The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, Percy Jackson series).  As I’ve alluded to above, they share some great conversations and I enjoyed watching the relationship develop between them.

It’s not as gritty or emotive as the top World War II films (such as Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line) and it’s very much towing a patriotic U.S. line but Fury is still an involving war drama.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2014

In 1996, American journalist Gary Webb (Renner) came across a career defining story.  He had evidence that Nicaraguan drug cartels has been importing and selling cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s.  That in itself wasn’t news.  Most knew that anyway.  The catch was that the CIA knew this was going on but were turning a blind eye.

Why?  Well, that’s because the profits from the drug trade were going to CIA-supported rebels in Nicaragua.  They could then buy arms and continue their fight to overthrow the Nicaraguan government (a cause that President Reagan supported).  The bottom line – the CIA was prepared to lose one fight (the growing cocaine epidemic) in the hope that they would win another (political stability in Nicaragua).

The first half of the film chronicles Webb’s efforts in bringing the story to the public’s attention.  Working for the San Jose Mercury News, a small newspaper with an even smaller circulation, Webb didn’t have a lot of resources at his disposal.  He would have to do all the heavy lifting himself.  A further complication is that not all of his sources were willing to go “on the record”.  We see Webb being warned by a National Security Council official that “some stories are just too true to tell.”

Webb’s article was published in August 1996 and became headline news across the country.  Director Michael Cuesta uses archival news footage and interviews to help illustrate the level of public concern that existed at the time.  There was particular outrage from the African American community as many youngsters had become cocaine addicts.

What happened next may surprise you.  It was certainly a surprise to Gary Webb.  Bigger newspapers were unhappy that they’d missed this “exclusive” and so, instead of investigating the CIA further, they went after Webb.  The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Washington Post tried to discredit his allocations by using “anonymous intelligence officials” as their sources.  It left Webb ostracised by the journalism community and struggling to keep his own job.

Based on the 2006 book written by Nick Schou, this is a film that sides with Gary Webb.  Not everyone is going to agree with that stance.  Jeff Leen, an editor for The Washington Post, describes this Hollywood-ised version of the film as “pure fiction” and notes Schou’s own comments that Webb’s stories “contained major flaws of hyperbole.”

So who is right?  I’m not sure anyone knows the full answer given how many people “may” have been involved in the CIA’s “alleged” conspiracy.  Those particularly interested in the subject matter can do more reading on the web (or perhaps track down Schou’s book).  The film heightened my interest in this small piece of history so it’s effective in that regard.

I was also lured in by the film’s look at the inner workings within the media.  It may be set in the mid-1990s but its issues of journalistic integrity as just as relevant today.  You can scrutinise the actions of the Gary Webb and the staff at the San Jose Mercury News.  You can do the same for those at the major newspapers who subsequently went on the attack.  It’s a nice reminder of the adage – “never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 October 2014

Andrew Neyman (Teller) is a talented jazz drummer in his first year at the most prestigious music school in the United States.  In the film’s opening scene, we see him practicing late one night to the point where the drumsticks have left blisters on his hands.  Appearing to have very few friends, Andrew is prepared to forgo an active social life in pursuit of his goal – to be the world’s best drummer.

In that same opening sequence, he is spotted by Terence Fletcher (Simmons) – the school’s chief music conductor.  There are some teachers who like to be friends with their students and take the “softly, softly” approach.  Fletcher is not one of them.  When he storms into a rehearsal room, he always brings a sense of fear.  Everyone falls silent.  Their eyes collectively look to the floor.

There’s a nice side to Fletcher that is fleetingly visible.  For example, we see him talking sweetly to a young child and inspiring her to become a successful pianist.  Such moments are forgotten when you see the second of his two faces.  He tells a female saxophonist that she must have been selected because of her good looks and not her talent.  He teases another student about his weight and then accuses him of playing out of tune (when that’s not actually the case).

The opening half of Whiplash is about trying to understand Fletcher.  When he’s throwing chairs at students from across the room and when he’s reducing them to tears with his sadistic comments, is there a method to his madness?  Is he using fear to motivate the students?  Is he trying to separate the good from the great?  Or… is he just an odious human being?  Does he take pleasure from the humiliation and degradation of those under his control?

The film’s second half flips the focus – it’s about trying to understand Andrew as Fletcher’s emotional abuse and intense practice regime starts to take its toll.  Andrew clearly has a love for drumming but he now has doubts.  Does he actually have what it takes to be a professional?  Have Fletcher’s unorthodox techniques exposed his weaknesses?  Or… does he believe in himself enough to push back?  Should he stand up to Fletcher and put him to the test in return?

Winner of the Audience Award and Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival back in January, Whiplash is a powerful film headlined by two passionate performances.  Fletcher is a character whose actions and insults could easily become laughable if overplayed.  Thankfully, that’s not the case thanks to the brilliance of J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Juno).  Writer-director Damien Chazelle considered Simmons for the role after recalling his equally strong presence in the 1990s television series, Oz, set in a maximum-security prison.

It feels like Miles Teller has been around for a lot longer than 4 years.  After making his debut in 2010’s Rabbit Hole, Teller has built a name for himself through a series of teen-orientated movies including Project X, The Spectacular Now, That Awkward Moment and Divergent.  You’ll see a different side of Teller here as he deftly illustrates Andrew’s skill with the drums but also his fragile mental state.  He draws on numerous emotions and it’s a performance equal to that of Simmons.

Before the shoot, Teller spent months improving his drumming skills under the tutelage of Nate Lang – a member of a New York based band known as the Howlin’ Souls.  It’s a nice touch that Lang plays Andrew’s drumming rival, Carl, in the film itself.

The screenplay rushes through some events a little too quickly but this is still an impressive achievement for Chazelle who loosely drew on his own experiences when creating the story.  It wants you to dissect these intriguing characters and also reflect on what it takes, rightly or wrongly, to succeed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 October 2014

The UK miners’ strike in 1984 has been well documented.  The Margaret Thatcher led government announced the closure of numerous coal mines across Britain.  The National Union of Mineworkers responded by initiating a national strike.  It was an issue that divided the country and it wasn’t until almost a year later that the workers finally relented and returned to the mines.

The strike provided the backdrop to 2000’s much acclaimed drama, Billy Elliot (still my all-time favourite film).   Writer Stephen Beresford and Tony Award winning director Matthew Warchus (Matilda: The Musical) have borrowed from the same piece of history to create Pride.  The focus here is not so much on the miners but rather a group of gay and lesbians fighting for their own equality.

Based on actual events, the story is largely centred on Mark Ashton (Schnetzer), a twenty-something year old gay rights activist living in London.  Looking to improve the public’s perception of the homosexual community, Mark starts a campaign known as “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners.”  He and his friends collect money on the street and then pass the proceeds through the National Union of Mineworkers.

It’s a good deed… but one with a dual purpose.  By targeting the miners, who now find themselves marginalised like many homosexuals, he hopes to build a rapport that can break down barriers.  It won’t be easy though.  There are plenty of folk on both sides of the fence who have doubts.  Some have much stronger moral objections.

Pride is an ensemble piece with most characters leaving an impression.  A subdued Bill Nighy (The Boat That Rocked) and an excitable Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) play residents of a small Welsh town who embrace their new gay friends.  George MacKay (Sunshine On Leith) features as a closeted youngster who sneaks out of his parents’ house to help the cause.  Andrew Scott (Sherlock) plays a middle-aged gay man looking for the courage to speak to his mother for the first time in almost two decades.

Some have panned the film for its narrow focus.  They believe it glosses over the plight of the miners (who ultimately lost) and the rising impact on AIDS within the gay community.  Others have criticised the film for its lack of historical accuracy.  They claim that it oversimplifies the characters and makes things out to be far too black and white (for example, the real Mark Ashton was far more politically driven that the film suggests).

These detractors are in the minority.  Pride premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (as part of the Directors’ Fortnight program) and performed solidly at the box-office when released in the U.K. last month.  The high grading from the public on the Internet Movie Database (a current score of 8.1 out of 10) suggests that most are seeing this film as it was intended – as a warm-hearted, feel-good comedy that embraces its 1980s setting and highlights a small piece of forgotten history.