[Update: I've added a review for
Die Hard 4.0, which I've just seen as part of a family outing]
While I had a quiet week with film viewings, I did get to interview Alkinos Tsilimidos, my favourite Australian film-maker on the weekend. This was something I alluded to in my
overview of 2006, but have been keeping quietly to myself. I'd been wondering whether I would ever find the time to carry through with it. Now I have the ball rolling.
I am trying to work out how to use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, to automate some of the transcribing. I didn't get to record the entirety of the interview due to teething problems with my new digital voice recorder (my fault, not the technology). I'm hoping to have another meeting with Alkinos soon, to continue the discussion we started. The subject I'm covering with him relates to his work but ultimately is bigger than him and bigger than Melbourne Film Blog. I'm hoping to write an article for Senses of Cinema in relation to his films and the type of film-making that constitutes. My inspiration has been Michael Guillen, with his many interviews at
The Evening Class. More later.
FILMS:
- Dr. Plonk (Rolf de Heer, Australia, 2006)
- Sunset Blvd. (Billy Wilder, USA, 1950)
- Die Hard 4.0 (Live Free or Die Hard, Len Wiseman, USA, 2007)
OTHER:
- Poets Against the War (The Age Melbourne Writer's Festival, Beckett Theatre, CUB Malthouse)
Sunset Blvd.
Sharp dialogue, clever self- and cross-references, various cameos and a knowing cynicism of Hollywood celebrity mark this classic film that I finally got to see for the first time at Melbourne Cinémathèque. While the film is widely known, I'm told the print we viewed is the only one in Australia, from the National Film and Sound Archives. This is only the second Wilder film I have seen, the other being
Irma La Douce, which was nowhere near as gripping and intelligent as this. Great stuff!
Die Hard 4.0
One expects the latest installment of a franchise like
Die Hard to be derivative, predictable and unbelievable, so there's no point seeing it without cutting it some slack. Despite some aspects that bothered me,
Die Hard 4.0 initially surprised me how engaging and suspenseful it is. Well, at least for the first third of the film. Then, oh dear, there was much to cringe at.
I will say here, though, that in spite of the many, many flaws that unfolded, if you like the earlier
Die Hard films, as I do, you're sure to like this. I just think it's a pity there wasn't a bit more thought to make this a more satisfying experience.
So let me mention some of the things that bothered me:
- Hackneyed racial stereotyping that could be offensive to some. French terrorists? The French are the enemy of the US? Sounds like a right-wing US perspective that bothered me. And a part-Asian kick-ass female bad-gal was similarly potentially offensive to some. There's two aspects to this: one the cross-racial aspect, and two, the depiction of Asians in US films. To the film's credit, it went against the unwritten (politically correct) code that you never beat up a woman. I thought it was great that McClane (Bruce Willis) gave this 'chick' as good as he got. But then his repetitive references to her as an Asian bitch was unnecessary.
- Hackneyed film and editing style from the MTV school of music video that seems to have swamped US television and blockbuster film-making. You know? Digital photography, accentuated contrast, unnecessarily dark, bleached look, rapid intercutting, unnecessarily shaky camera, even when a car is travelling unrushed. The same old stupid devices that have been done a million times and are so tired and distracting.
- Derivations that border on plagiarism:
- A Keannu Reeves-like character (á la The Matrix) who looks like - wait for it - Keannu Reeves in The Matrix (but 15 years younger)
- An action sequence that manages to borrow/steal from not one, not two, but three films: Speed, True Lies and Terminator 2
- The film felt the need to spell out what was going to happen about three times
- A hostage scenario that was predictable from the very beginning, that ended in such a predictable and cringe-worthy way
- At 130 minutes, the film was way too long. It needed to be edited to 90 minutes max
- Gratuitous references to terrorism, 9/11 and homeland security
- A relatively minor point, but people's teeth were too white - I always find that distracting
I will say that I didn't have a problem with the unbelievability of the stunts, most of which I found exciting and well done. I also didn't have a problem with McClane's getting beat up beyond all plausibility. Again, you know this is coming with this franchise. It's kinda funny, and Willis does this quite well, along with his wise-guy humour.
Basically, the first third of the film is exciting, the second third is flat and the end is embarrassingly trying to find a way out of a mess, and relying on ridiculous contrivances and derivations to get there. It's a shame, because if the film had stayed on the track it started on, many of the flaws could easily have been overlooked, and it would easily have been a four or more star film (for the genre). It's still good fun for what it is, and vastly superior to that other franchise,
James Bond. Good as a time-filler or a break from all those bleak and slow films at MIFF.
Poets Against the WarWhile I'm not particularly interested in poetry, I am vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq (and war in general) and wanted to show my support. I was alerted to
this event by
Alison Croggon, who was one of the speakers at the event, the others being
J.S Harry and
Barry Hill.
I can honestly say I am a poetry philistine and that I got more out of the Q&A afterwards. In answer to to questions from the audience at the end, the three speakers were in agreement that there is no difference in approach to writing poetry about war or any other subject. The other stand-out point made was that writing about political matters generally needs to be discreet rather than overt. Quotes were made from Orwell, that I can't recall in enough detail to try to paraphrase here.
I wouldn't normally post about what is for me a local festival, but this one may be of interest to readers here because it includes film and film-related events. I believe the Williamstown Literary Festival has been a regular event since 2005, but it's never been on my radar until now. I normally find out about it after the fact but this year one of my local bookshops sent out an email promoting it.
