FILM: Elysium

For the unenlightened, Neill Blomkamp is a new film director - a “break-out”, if you will - whose 2009 debut film was a brilliant, innovative and thought-provoking piece of modern cinema. I speak, of course, of District 9, a gritty science fiction film about aliens who come to Earth not as invaders, but as refugees. It was a clever analogical depiction of the state of the disparity and wealth inequality between the first and third worlds, which illustrated the appalling way in which we, in the first world, treat the less advantaged citizens of the Earth.

To be brief, I loved District 9. The unique direction style reminded me somewhat of Cloverfield but with a more conventional approach, with an atmosphere more akin to a documentary than a science-fiction film. This style made the events feel very real and intense, as though the film really was a documentary, and it utilised truly groundbreaking special effects which, when combined with the unique direction techniques of the film, brought the story to life.

Blomkamp certainly has a particular interest in the third world, perhaps influenced by growing up in South Africa. His films are almost an activism campaign for raising awareness about those living in truly horrendous conditions, and our apathetic attitude towards such people. There is a common political theme running through his two films thus far, but he expresses it in a very unique and clever way. For example: District 9 is about aliens who come to Earth as refugees seeking asylum. Blomkamp has taken an issue normally between nations here on Earth (i.e. within humanity itself), and extrapolated it for a much larger scale, making the entire human race subjected to an interstellar equivalent of the same issue. The result is a harsh depiction of what would really happen, applying current trends to this fictional setting. The clever twist is that District 9 evokes sympathy for the aliens by showing the appalling way in which the humans treat the aliens - and by extension of the allegory, it evokes sympathy for real refugees here on Earth. Moreover, the characters which we are meant to feel contempt for are intended to represent us wealthy people in first world countries such as the US and Europe, so it doubles as a guilt trip.

So it’s a thought provoking film, using a science-fiction concept to extend our current behaviour to a cosmic level, providing a unique commentary on a modern issue. Similarly, Elysium takes the same approach to a very similar problem. Set in Los Angeles, Elysium is a very grim depiction of the future, where cities like L.A. are not prosperous or populated with flying cars and shiny architecture. In fact, L.A. has been reduced to a ruin more akin to a rural Middle-Eastern town, full of ghettos and populated by a low socio-economic class of people. The aforesaid flying cars and shiny architecture is on Elysium, a utopian settlement enclosed on a space-station, where the rich managed to buy their way into and have populated it ever since, prosecuting or even killing those from Earth who attempt to enter unauthorised.

Like District 9, it is generally accepted that Elysium is an allegorical tale about refugees, but I like to think it is more broad than that. To me, Elysium seems to be about wealth inequality in general, particularly between the first and third worlds, illustrating it on a much larger scale by putting the first world in space, and the third world together over the entire Earth. And, again like District 9, Elysium evokes sympathy mainly for the disadvantaged people, and the people we are meant to feel contempt for are meant to represent us, in wealthy first world countries.

I mentioned District 9 in such depth because Elysium feels much like District 9 with a much larger budget. The distinct “realistic” filmmaking technique is still present, and it is a rare blockbuster film where the special effects and CGI add something vital to the film. Perhaps it’s because the mockumentary style of filming coupled with CGI makes the CGI feel more real, which is certainly a positive thing. The narrative involves Matt Damon as Max, a blue-collar worker in L.A., who is subjected to the most horrendous workplace health-and-safety regulations, and suffers a fatal dose of radiation as a result of employer negligence and apathy. Given five days to live, he becomes determined to make his way to Elysium and heal himself using the advanced medical equipment they have there.

With its grim and cynical portrayal of the future, the first half hour of Elysium is breathtaking. The visuals are great, the aforementioned filmmaking style is excellent and the setting is compelling. L.A. is run by dehumanising robot law enforcement and legal officials, completely degrading human dignity by forcing people to answer to algorithms, rather than other human beings. What’s truly unsettling is that this is not an unrealistic future for us, as we can already see in 2013 technology heading in a similar direction, and Elysium shows us a potential consequence of our  current technological trends.

The fundamentals are all here. Writing, characters, plot, visuals are all solid and no further comment is necessary, other than to say it’s miles ahead of the mediocre status quo in Hollywood. Everything is executed smoothly and within the realm of plausibility, and is given additional weight by the “realistic” filming technique employed by Blomkamp. What was nice about District 9, though, was the lack of famous movie stars, with unfamiliar faces rendering it difficult to see past the acting and to the actor. Elysium’s cast is fronted by Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, two incredibly well known names, and at times their characters are more easily identifiable by the actors’ names, than the actual names of the characters. The South-African lead from District 9 makes a reappearance, which is nice, because I really liked him as an actor.

Nevertheless, Matt Damon shows in Elysium that he’s far from just a pretty face and actually knows how to act well, bringing life into his character, and I daresay this is probably his finest role yet (that I have seen). Foster, on the other hand, disappointed me. I am a fan of Jodie Foster, who is a tremendous actor and one of my favorite female actors, and she has an extraordinary talent. However, she was crippled from the start by being required to speak in a British/European accent for the role, and she executed it so appallingly it’s all one can notice about her entire screen time. It sounds like she spent her every line putting all the effort into the accent - which fluctuates dramatically anyway - and neglected the core of acting, which is to bring the character to life. The result is every single line delivered in a stale and stifled manner, which hauls you right out of the experience and cripples the film as a whole. I like Foster’s screen presence, and there was great potential for this role to be something incredible, but in a way this nearly ruined the whole film for me. To have one major character acting in a robotic way is almost enough to make the whole experience appear insincere and hollow.

Frankly, this is balanced by her character being killed off relatively quickly, which highlights another missed opportunity. Jodie Foster’s character’s role is established very quickly, as the antagonist, but there’s not enough exploration in to her character at all to justify this. Some back-and-forth dialogue between her and the citizens of Earth would have unfolded the story quite significantly, and would have been fascinating territory to explore. But she dies, not really a great loss for the story progression, and the only thinkable justification for her character is sheer sociopathy.

And of course, with the bigger budget comes the mandatory insipid action sequences, which Elysium devolves to toward the end. There are long, drawn out fight scenes with Matt Damon and the villain, both with super-power suits, and every second is tedious and boring. They have no weight or point to them, and they lack any kind of significance to the plot. The ending is itself fairly generic, as an emotional tale of heroic self-sacrifice which is derivative and uninspired. Most of the action manages to have the necessary tension to make it mean something, but Elysium loses its ability to do this towards the end, and thus loses it’s uniqueness.

District 9 has an important psychological aspect wherein the protagonist - a xenophobic bastard - slowly becomes one of the aliens he was once railing against. It’s a great reversal of perspectives, and was proven very difficult to top with Elysium, which has nothing of the sort; barely an attempt at such a thing. The film is played remarkably straight and safe, with designated heroes and villains, and barely a smudge between the divisions. Not to say it’s completely straight and conventional - far from it. But by the second half, the subversive nature of the film begins to straighten out and Elysium becomes more predictable.

Elysium is far from bad - it may yet be one of the best films of the year. But it seems as though there was so much potential for in-depth development of the concept which was missed. It raised a unique and thought-provoking setting, but failed to go anywhere interesting with it. I was waiting for the culmination of the point of the film which never really happened, with a showdown of ideas between Jodie Foster and Matt Damon juxtaposing the two vastly different viewpoints to highlight their fallacies.

Elysium is a film that could have benefited from being half an hour longer, or perhaps even a full hour longer. It is definitely interesting enough to maintain one’s attention for that long, so it could have gotten away with such a long run time, but in any case, 109 minutes is nowhere near enough time to explore the full scope of what could be done with this concept. It’s a great idea, but it is hardly developed to any significant degree, and ultimately comes across as insincere. Having said that, it’s still a good film, far better than the average film of the day, and it’s definitely a must-see. It’s just not as great as it could have been, and subsequently disappoints. Part of the problem is certainly that Elysium must live in the shadow of District 9, and they’re far too similar to not compare.

FILM: Now You See Me

Now You See Me is a drama/comedy film by French director Louis Leterrier, and upon announcement was an initially very attractive film for a couple of reasons. The first is that it features a tremendous ensemble cast, including Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, and the second is its original and unique story idea. The film concerns a group of four magicians of various styles banding together to use their illusionary tricks on a large scale, usually to commit robbery. It is an intriguing premise, and since seeing the trailer I’ve been very interested in the final result.

The film follows four professional magicians - a slight-of-hand artist, a mentalist, an escapist, and a street magician - who are called together by an anonymous benefactor for mysterious reasons. A year later, they are shown performing a collaborative theater-style magic act in a stadium setting, whereupon they proceed to rob a French bank from the stage in Las Vegas. From there, the film follows an FBI agent and his assistant in their efforts to find and catch these magicians and hold them accountable for their crimes - which, given the nature of illusionism, one can imagine would be problematic. The concept is very entertaining for the aforementioned reasons. Watching a high-strung FBI agent chasing clever and subversive illusionists to no avail is a very gratifying and amusing experience.

Now You See Me places enough emphasis on humour to be labelled at least partially comedy, in my opinion, and is also actually genuinely funny in that regard. There are also enough sincere moments for it to be labelled either an action or a drama; regardless, the film is both humorous and sincere and, above all, convincing for the most part. Now You See Me has a unique overarching premise and plot, but is distinctly a character focussed film, with the primary focus being the various characters and interactions between them. Each character is well written and well defined enough to be both likable and flawed, and as a result, all characters feel plausible and alive, which gives true weight to the story. Generally, it’s a difficult thing to do with so many different characters, but Now You See Me manages to pull it off remarkably, giving each individual enough screen time to establish exactly who they are, but without clogging the script with excessive backstory.

There is a technique oft used in screenwriting, which I believe is generally successful in good characterisation, and that is the use of inconsequential, banal banter between characters. The incidental quips between various individuals in the film, excluding expositional dialogue, give glimpses into the person’s true self, and their personality begins to unravel. Often it seems these minor quips are used primarily for comic relief, but with due consideration to who says what, to whom, when, and in what context, it can be used to breathe life into the characters in a remarkably profound way. This is true because it resembles the kind of banal banter real people engage in in real life conversations, and it’s something human audiences can relate to. We begin to see how the characters on screen are similar and dissimilar to ourselves, and others we know, and it gives us an accurate frame of reference when we try to understand who these people are. Films with more comedic leanings often accomplish this to a greater extent than more serious films, as their entire aim is to score laughs, and with these kinds of humorous one-liners they show us more about the true personality of these characters, inadvertently or otherwise. It’s something Now You See Me does quite well, managing to be simultaneously funny and real, and this is bolstered by the aforementioned all-star cast, with a line up of either great or at least decent actors.

Indeed, sometimes all it takes for a film to be enjoyable is to have good actors we enjoy watching perform at their best, and that could be enough for this film. But unfortunately, it is not entirely the case.

Where Now You See Me falls down drastically is in plot development, particularly in the latter half. Over time, it is revealed that the elaborate schemes and tricks preformed by the quartet (who are known as the “Four Horsemen”) are a series of tests and trials so the four can “prove their worth” and join a secret society of magicians (cf. Illuminati). It turns out their work was little more than elaborate instructions which they had to follow to the letter for this entire scheme to work. As a plot point, it merely serves to undermine the implied genius of each character, as they were just following orders the entire time, and the very existence of a secret society of magicians to me seems silly. Additionally, everything is over-exaggerated to the point of absurdity, which doesn’t do any favours for the plausibility of the events; things glowing blue when “magic” is acted on them, over-elaborate stage props, stifled and cringeworthy speeches from the Four Horsemen etc. These elements do little more than make the entire experience seem surreal and strange, and it somewhat undermines the idea that these “magic tricks” are mere illusions of magic, if everything is glowing with an eerie blue supernatural luminescence. My point is that the visual style reeks of style over substance, with the excessive reliance on CGI making everything seem far too much like surreal science fiction or fantasy, and there’s almost no subtlety in the film whatsoever. A more subtle exploration of the dynamics of the magic tricks, with more organic visual effects, would have been more effective.

Despite the needlessly elaborate plot, Now You See Me is still decent, and has great strengths in other areas. Part of the central concept is the idea that all the magic tricks shown are merely  exercises in deception - this is explicitly stated many times by the characters. What’s remarkable is how it manages to fool us, the audience, with many of the tricks apparently supernatural, and left unexplained until a recount of the events later on, almost as though the film is playing a theoretical trick on its audience. It’s a neat touch how there is a logical explanation for everything. The genius of the film comes out in the illustration of the aforementioned concept concerning deception and red herrings to fool audiences, as part of the overall mystery is regarding who brought these four magicians together in the first place. The film deliberately draws your attention to several suspects - Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and even the FBI agent’s assistant, played by Mélanie Laurent. These are successful distractions from the truth, when it is revealed to be the FBI agent himself who is the puppeteer. In discussing the dynamic of illusionism, the film illustrates itself how these kinds of psychological tricks are played on audiences, on a vastly different level. It involves a small amount of fourth-wall leaning to get there, but it’s a great touch.

Perhaps calling it “genius” is too generous, but Now You See Me is certainly a clever film. Despite the various plot issues, it has a solid script to fall back on, which is more than I can say for most recent releases,  and is genuinely funny. And if that’s not enough, there are at least some great actors who are entertaining to watch - incidentally, Michael Caine makes a great villainous character. But that aside, overall Now You See Me is little more than a slightly above-average comedic drama. As a character focussed film, it’s well written with nicely rounded characters, but it hardly stands out in any regard, and dependence on CGI once again rears its ugly head to the detriment of yet another film. It’s a fascinating and entertaining experience, and a film I enjoyed a lot, but it's unexceptional.

MUSIC: Asymmetry - Karnivool

A while ago, I was really into progressive rock as a genre and musical style. I enjoyed the subversive complexity and elaborate motifs which kept the music interesting, engaging and unpredictable. It didn’t take long for me to tire of it, though, because the more I listened to progressive music, the more I realised it had become a conventional sound in and of itself, and so-called “prog” bands were merely writing incredibly long and elaborate songs for their own sake, at the expense of the music. It became progression for progression’s sake. The convention is to create music with irregular time signatures, absurd song lengths which constantly shift and change tone, and supposedly push the boundaries of what has been done before. The problem, however, is that these “prog” bands write songs for the sole purpose of being complicated and elaborate, and the music suffers for it. Regardless of your perspective on musicality, we’re talking about aural aesthetics, and bands which try to write the most elaborate, complex, and unconventional songs without giving thought to the actual sound of the music are no longer writing music, instead merely showing off how clever they are. I like complexity, but much of the “prog” rock scene is little more than pretentious bands showing off how amazingly clever they are, while giving no thought to the aural aesthetics of what they create. Technically impressive, but musically lacking. 

Essentially, that is the crux of my issue with progressive rock. As a counter-example, I’d like to cite Tool as a band who does so-called progressive music well. Despite their very complex songwriting techniques, anyone can tell that for them, the music comes first, because the music fits together in a way which sounds natural, organic and balanced, and the songs evolve and shift the same motifs to create a sense of unity and consistency within one song, rather than sounding like several different songs stitched together. Even Schism - with it’s 40-odd time signature changes - flows naturally from one segment to the next, rendering the odd timings barely noticeable. It feels like we’re at the other end of the spectrum with Karnivool, with their latest album Asymmetry sounding very disjointed and inconsistent at times.

Karnivool are an alternative-metal-progressive-rock band hailing from Perth, Australia. They are fronted by Ian Kenny, also the lead singer of Birds of Tokyo, a band who released two good albums before disappearing into mediocrity. Karnivool’s last album, Sound Awake, was an interesting and eerily atmospheric rock album with progressive and heavy metal influences. It’s a good album, full of original ideas synthesized well, and carrying a unique, thick, bass-heavy sound. Asymmetry, while still consisting of a lot of interesting and decent musical ideas, feels very inconsistent and as though the band struggled with putting their ideas together in a coherent fashion. In traditional “prog rock” fashion, the songs lack a predictable structure, and while this is not necessarily a bad thing, in this particular instance it is the cause of the album’s inconsistent feel. Songs tonally and rhythmically jump all over the place, and each sounds like it could make two or three good songs out of it.

It seems like Karnivool are trying to do too much, and in trying too hard to be complex they ended up doing so at the expense of the music, producing an album more convoluted than complex. There’s not a whole lot of breathing room for the music to really breathe, grow, develop, and manifest itself, as the band try to cram as much as they can into each song. Just as you start to get into a song, it changes into something drastically different, and the contrast is more jarring than intriguing. It would be better if the songs changed more subtly, while retaining a consistent tone and motif, rather than abruptly change into a completely different song two minutes in. It would even work better if the songs were longer, allowing each section of each song to develop some momentum before switching. The result, however, is difficult to keep track of, and gets ahead of itself too often that it becomes difficult to listen to.

In the interest of complexity and innovation, Asymmetry includes a lot of polyrhythms and switching to and from unconventional time signatures. This sounds good in theory, and when done well it can be incredible, but it falls flat in Asymmetry because such syncopated rhythms sound very unnatural, stifled and inorganic. I can’t put my finger on exactly why it is, but in songs like We Are (which switches between 7/8 and 5/8 per bar at the start) the way the rhythmic irregularities grate together stand out very conspicuously, and it becomes borderline irritating to listen to. A.M.War is in 11/8, and unless you can figure that out, the song is little more than an annoying sound.

Having said that, it is very satisfying to decipher the time signatures, and Asymmetry becomes more enjoyable to listen to once you do. But remember that all this is at the expense of musicality. If the music is annoying to listen to because you’re trying to figure out the rhythms, we’re no longer listening to, or feeling, the music, because we’re trying too hard to analyse the arithmetic of the song, and in doing so we overlook the most important aspect of music: aural aesthetics. It might be technically brilliant, but if it’s musically average there was no point bothering with the complex techniques in the first place. Techniques are a means to an end when it comes to writing music, and not an end in itself. The syncopated rhythms and polyrhythms, the unpredictable song structures and long, evolving songs are techniques to be used as tools to assist in making great music, and should never be used for their own sake. This is the exact same reason I refuse to be impressed by guitar solos, unless they contribute constructively to the tone of the music. Because if you’re only using guitar solos or unconventional time signatures just for the sake of it, you’ve ceased writing music, and at that stage you’re merely showing off.

When Asymmetry abandons its pretentiousness, the resulting music is actually fairly unexciting. Eidolon is all that needs to be heard for this point to be made. It’s little more than a bland, boring, simple pop-rock song, uninspired and uninspiring. Despite this, I enjoyed Asymmetry mildly. Even if the music is lacking, there are enough good ideas to keep one interested for a while, and the songs are impressively composed. It’s a hollow effort, though, unless it contributes to the actual music, and this is something Karnivool seemed to struggle with. It is as I mentioned earlier: technically impressive, but musically lacking. And this is why progressive rock earns the pretentious label, because it often puts the compositional techniques higher than the actual music.

I think Asymmetry’s main issue was having to live in the shadow of Sound Awake, which was quite excellent. There is one more issue which must be raised, incidentally relevant to both albums, which is that both are far too clean. Ian Kenny’s voice is very clean and refined, and the guitars and bass are smooth and polished, which I personally find off-putting and insincere, as the finished product feels filtered through studio production, resulting in a diluted sound. The Refusal shows them taking cues from the metalcore scene, complete with screaming and everything, but this sounds more like an attempt to cash in on the popularity of metalcore than legitimately expanding into other directions. But this is a minor issue which can be overlooked. Overall, Asymmetry is fairly enjoyable.

There was a lot of potential on this album. Simplicity in music is far overvalued in modern music, and Asymmetry is definitely miles ahead of the garbage that passes for music these days. But I feel Karnivool tried to do too much, and the result subsequently collapsed under its own weight. What’s worse, is that everything they tried to do has already been done better - both by themselves previously, and by other bands. There are a lot of really interesting things going on here, but they aren’t implemented effectively enough for them to manifest into well-rounded songs, and the album sounds like all the good ideas where shaken up in a box and delivered as the final product. I like Karnivool as a band, but this album is a disappointment. I have to concede it’s still fairly good, and worth a listen, but it’s far from amazing and has a lot of issues.