Animal Farm: Not all animals are equal

There are few films which are made with a certain context in mind and don’t necessarily make sense when not viewed from that same perspective. Few films like Animal Farm are made as a reflection of a political scenario and while they have a storyline of their own, to understand the truth in them it is important to realise the context in which the film is made and how it is relative in real life.

When an aged hog named Major calls for a meeting with all the animals on Manor Farm, he reveals his vision for the animals to revolt against the owner Mr Jones for crimes committed against the animals. Major believes the dismal state of the animals should not be taken lightly and the only way to get what they truly deserve is if every animal unites to overthrow the oppressive humans. Major succumbs to his age the same night but the animals pay heed to his message and claim the farm for themselves the very next day by chasing Jones off the property and renaming the farm ‘Animal Farm’. Being the smartest of the lot, the pigs organise the codes to live by for all the animals on the farm and teach them the importance of education and hard work. The pig named Snowball takes it upon himself to make sure all the animals are taken care of but his efforts go in vain as another pig named Napoleon chooses to ignore the plights of his comrades and ultimately teaches the rest of the animals the bitter truth that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The film was directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas and released in the year 1954. It is an adaptation of the novel of the same name written by George Orwell. While most of the plot in the film is closely based on that of the novel, a few liberties have been taken with the screen version which differentiate from the original storyline. The story is an allegory of the political situation which existed in one particular nation in the 1940s and predicts what was likely to happen in the near future from the time of the novel being written.

The animation style is typical of that used in animated films in the 1950s. The major visible difference is in the colour tones which are used for the film. The colours are dull since it takes on a serious topic as opposed to other animated films which were light-hearted movies. This clearly demarcated that the film wasn’t naturally targeted towards children but was an animated film meant to be watched by adult audiences. The dull colour tones reflect the grave situation of the characters in the film since their lives are depressed and sombre at every turn.

The film takes a fair amount of time to establish the storyline but then tends to speed up towards the later stages of the plot. Unfortunately, not enough time is given to explain the plot in detail as the film progresses and the concluding stages are rushed into. The thoughts of the characters do not come across clearly because of lack of adequate dialogues or expressions. The narration does the job of explaining the internal monologues of the characters which is unfortunate since it is the easiest way to showcase a character’s emotions but not the best. The film clearly comes across as a propaganda film since the negative characters are painted in a bad light from the start without much explanation to their actions.

There is much to be desired with this film. While the storyline is adapted from a very good novel, the film does not manage to do it justice.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Including Life, the Universe and Everything

At some point in their life, every person has wondered what their purpose in life is. Questions involving why humans are on Earth, what they are supposed to do with their lives and whether there is more to life than what meets the eye have wandered through many minds without really producing a definitive answer. But it is likely that a definitive answer does not exist; or in fact, a definitive answer is not really needed to carry on with life. And that is the point made in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Arthur Dent rises one morning to a rude awakening that his house is to be demolished immediately to make way for a bypass. In denial but unable to do anything about the situation, Arthur is dragged off to a pub by his friend Ford Prefect under the pretext of having a pint of beer before the world comes to an end. Ford confesses to being an alien from a neighbouring planet and a journalist who is commissioned to complete writing The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Reluctant to believe him, Arthur gets dragged along and finds himself on an alien ship with planet Earth reduced to dust. An altercation with their host results in them being evacuated and picked up by the Heart of Gold, a ship stolen by the President of the Universe and Ford’s semi half-brother, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Also on board are Marvin the Paranoid Android and Tricia McMillian aka Trillian, a human who Arthur knew from his days back on Earth and who becomes his love interest. Together the collective travel the galaxy in search of the true question to life, the universe and everything that will be a suitable match for the answer 42.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was directed by Garth Jennings and released in 2005. It is adapted from a novel of the same name which was written by Douglas Adams, who also co-wrote the screenplay for the film. The franchise includes the original novel, the film and several other spinoffs that arose after the original book was published. The film can be easily identified as science fiction with elements of fantasy spun into it, but the comedy in the film is a standout which cannot be ignored.

The actors have been cast excellently considering they fit perfectly into the style of their respective characters. The biggest challenge for the actors and the director in the film would have been to convey the deadpan style of humour which is unique to this franchise and incredibly difficult to recreate. As such, the film is a credit to the franchise and has been done well. The film does not attempt to raise questions and then solve them, it pokes fun at the idea of having an answer to everything we do in life and the constant need to rectify thoughts and actions with an ultimate purpose to one’s existence.

The tongue-in-cheek jokes that come up every now and then can be hilarious once understood in context. A constantly depressed robot saves the lives of a group of people by depressing their attackers, a Vogon’s preferred form of torture is to read poetry and a whale has just come into existence in free-fall unaware of what he is supposed to feel; certain moments such as these are truly hilarious and well done in the film. The superimposing of Arthur’s house being destroyed to make way for a national bypass and then his entire planet being destroyed to make way for a galactic bypass blends both tragedy and comedy, a rare occurrence in any film. Even the misfortune involving the President of the Galaxy ordering a planet to be destroyed when he thinks he is signing an autograph is a ridiculous moment which is then exaggerated because the same planet happens to be the most important in the galaxy that was created with a purpose of solving the ultimate question.

The film is mostly comedy mixed with science fiction. Few elements of romance crop up during the course of the film but it is overall a very good deadpan humour-based comedy film.

Candy: Drugs and a broken relationship

In most cultures, drugs are looked upon as being morally wrong. Through popular culture it is evident that civilised and well respected people are not associated with drug users who are seen in the light of being rundown and hopeless. The effects of drugs have been chronicled in a few films by showing hard-hitting consequences due to drug consumption. One of the few that took up the topic was the 2006 film Candy which starred Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish.

Dan and Candy are deeply in love. Dan is a poet and Candy is an artist but neither has produced any work for an extended period of time because of their addiction to heroin. From the beginning it is evident that Dan is a user and initiates Candy into drug use which becomes the base of their relationship. They do whatever is required to gain hold of enough money to buy heroin just so they can have their regular fix. As time progresses their addiction grows stronger and borrowing money does not cut it; soon they resort to stealing which later gives way to prostitution. They realise they have spiralled out of control and try quitting to no avail. In the hope of leaving their past behind them and starting a new life, they move to the country side and try leaving the world of drugs behind. But their past life and dependence on drugs catches up to them when Candy’s parents come to visit for a Sunday lunch. Dan realises that he brought Candy into this mess and watches helplessly in the hope that they can finally change their life.

Candy was the feature film debut for Neil Armfield in the directorial role. Apart from his directorial contribution, Armfield also wrote the screenplay for the film which was adapted from a novel by Luke Davies titled Candy: A Novel of Love and Addiction. There aren’t too many standout points in terms of direction which is simple and realistic. One of the most important scenes in the film is when Dan and Candy isolate themselves after moving to a countryside bungalow in the hope of permanently quitting drugs. This scene was both shot and directed well as a continuous overhead shot was maintained over a three day time lapse in the film which depicted the pain the characters were undergoing at the time. The performances of the lead actors were quite good through most of the film as well. They were able to get into the skin of the character to display the emotion and physical agony which would be expected from someone who is detoxing from drugs.

The highlight of the film comes in the breakdown of the story. Most of the story is told from the perspective of the protagonist Dan who even narrates a few scenes. After the establishment of the relationship between the two lead characters, the plot is broken down into three main segments which is the course of their relationship and drug addiction. The three segments of the film are Heaven, Earth and Hell. In the segment called Heaven, the lives of the protagonists are comfortable. They are able to fend for themselves by borrowing and stealing money to take care of their drug addiction which is at a level of elation since they have plenty of drugs to manage their cravings. In the segment called Earth, they are faced with problems that an adult couple would normally face. They have stronger cravings for heroin and not enough money to satiate themselves which leads to the need for prostitution. The lack of money sees them losing their house and strains develop in their relationship. In the segment titled Hell, they find each other’s company and habits to be annoying. They are not able to stay at peace with their relatives and friends and find the need to ignore them for extended periods of time. Their drug problems are escalated here since they are attempting to give it up forever and find violent physical manifestations developing during their detox period.

The film has a stronger human angle than most other drug related movies. It shows real problems and human interactions which are caused due to drug problems. It proves that storytelling does not require shock value in order to be effective.

A Single Man: The last hours before a planned suicide

What goes through the mind of a person committing suicide? Actually if the act was planned what goes through their mind from the time they decide to do it till the time that they perform the act of actually ending their life? Do they experience fear, anxiety, anger or any other emotion? Do they go about their normal day? A Single Man is the story of the day that protagonist George Falconer plans to commit suicide.

Eight months prior to the present day, 30th November 1962, the closest person in George Falconer's life, his partner Jim, died of a car accident while visiting his family. To add to the grief of the loss, George was barely even informed of Jim's death let alone be allowed a last glimpse of the love of his life at the funeral. Today George is saturated with the grief that follows him day in and day out and has decided to end his life with his revolver. But before he draws his final breath, he goes about his final day by setting his perspectives right and also those of others around him, all the while he must remind himself to take his pills regularly which are a requirement after having suffered a heart attack months before. The story follows his interactions with his regular friends and others; Charley, his old friend who accompanied him from England to America; Alba, his maid who takes care of his house; Kenny, a student of his English class who is stalking him; Carlos, a Spanish prostitute who he runs into. The day unfolds for George with some routine activities and some unexpected events as he reminisces the past.

With the use of the time period the film is set in, director Tom Ford was able to depict anxiety in his characters through the political unrest which was prevalent in the United States at the time. The impeding Cold War which is a topic of discussion in the film allows the director to not only place questions on the need for war but also on the discrimination against homosexuality which is another focal point of the film.

Director Tom Ford made use of a desaturated colour scheme for most of the film to establish the fact that it is a period film set in the 1960’s, but he has also used bright colours to fill the screen whenever the protagonist finds hope in his despondent life which is a reminder of the pain that he is going through emotionally. The use of colours in the cinematography is a constant reminder for the audience that the protagonist is constantly depressed but is able to find happiness for at least a few moments, even on what he has planned to be his final day. The storyline has a few twists and turns, especially a final outcome which most audiences would not foresee. Colin Firth in the role of protagonist George Falconer does a brilliant job to bring the viewer into his own shoes.

For his directorial debut, Tom Ford has definitely done a brilliant job. It is a splendid film for anyone who enjoys films with a strong focus on human emotions and social standings.

Little Children: Tales of people who are forever young

Little Children is a film which is entirely about children. It seems a bit tricky to land up at that conclusion, especially considering that there is no child who is a protagonists or even a supporting character in the plotline; but in some way or the other, children are the focus of this 2006 film which was directed by Todd Field. So, it seems appropriate that the film, and novel it was scripted from, would be named Little Children.

Sarah Pierce is the mother of a 3 year old who is uncomfortable in her own skin. Her daughter is a jovial little girl who gets along fine with other children and adults but Sarah somehow seems to lack the natural maternal instincts which would endear her daughter to her and make her in-sync with her every need. On the other hand, Brad is a stay-at-home dad who is an aspiring lawyer but is unable to clear the bar exam. He takes his little son to the park where the other mothers ogle him but are too shy to talk to him. Sarah is dared to get Brad’s number on one such visit and she complies by getting Brad to hug her before they decide to completely freak the other mothers out and lock lips. The split second of contact is enough to send both their lives whirling as they are unable to think of anything other than each other for the next few weeks and eventually end up having an affair. On the other side of town, Ronnie McGorvey has recently returned from a 2 year term in prison for indecent exposure to a minor and is being harassed by former police officer, Larry Hedges, who is adamant on making Ronnie’s life a living hell.

The script for the film is adapted from a novel of the same name. The script was written by director Todd Field and author of the novel, Tom Perrotta. The use of narration in the film makes up for the lack of being able to see into the mind of the characters. The narration by Will Lyman features a deep voice to give a background on the character’s thoughts while also adding to the tone of the film, which in some parts is almost comical, owing especially to the narration. The narration also makes the film more endearing to the audience since the film otherwise has a very distant effect. Other techniques used in the film include a split screen during a telephone conversation to show the actions and reactions of people on both sides of the line simultaneously and an opening montage of shots taken of clay figurines of children, a way of establishing in the beginning of the film that the crux of the film revolves around little children.

The film has its ebbs and surges with a slow moving script which takes time to establish the characters and then speeds up as the action takes place to end with a seemingly rushed conclusion which leaves many questions about the final resolve of the characters and how each of them arrive at their individual conclusions which seem obtuse from their character sketches. Mainly, the film is about children who are the heroes of the story. While children by themselves are key to the plot, since they bring two main characters together and, in another instance, are cause for a rift between two people, the idea of a child being in each one of us is a subtle influence in the plot. The idea of a mother who is unable to figure out her own child because she hasn’t grown up enough to be a mother or a man wasting his time watching teenagers skate instead of studying for his exam and establishing his career, or a man being intent on bullying another man as a sense of retribution for his own crimes in the past, all are signs of growing old but not growing up.

Not a great film but an amiable film. It has its moments and its elements which make it stand out from the clutter of ordinary drama films.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A breath-taking nightmare of an alien invasion

Everyone has probably had a nightmare, or a hidden fear, of the world changing inexplicably one day or of being the last person on the planet and being surrounded by zombies or aliens. What would happen if you were actually in such a circumstance? Or if you were leading up to this circumstance and had to survive, what would you do? This is exactly the fear which is played upon in Don Siegel’s 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The story begins with a psychiatrist rushing to a hospital where a man is yelling at the top of his voice. The psychiatrist agrees to listen to his story as the man, presumed to be insane, reveals himself to be a doctor by the name of Miles Bennell from a small town called Santa Mira. Miles had just returned from a long trip and was greeted by his nurse with the news of countless patients waiting for his counsel. Peculiarly, all the patients had recovered mysteriously and no longer required a doctor. Miles was then faced with complicated situations as people in his town claimed that their loved ones were no longer the same; that they looked and acted the same but were somehow emotionless. Miles paid no heed to their claims as his psychiatrist friend assured him that it was an epidemic mass hysteria and Miles himself was busy getting reacquainted with his lost love, Becky Driscoll. Soon Miles figured out that the claims were in fact true and that the town was in risk of being run over by alien beings and he had to try to save himself and the ones he loved.

The screenplay of the film was adapted from a 1954 novel called The Body Snatchers. It is a classic in the science fiction genre with very little need for special effects and a film which relies heavily on a brilliant plot. The film was made on an extremely small budget which goes to show that good quality need not have great effects and technology. Every second of the film is captivating and the film as a whole is absolutely enthralling.

Although the film does not fall typically under film noir, it has many elements of the genre. It lacks the theme of crime and a plot with revolves around it, but it does have the use of shadows and background scoring which can place it effectively under the film noir genre. The film also employs other interesting techniques like the Dutch angle which helps build the tension in the particular scenes, the iconic shot of two characters driving in a car – which is done from both sides of a 180 degree axis – and a background score which helps modulate the mood according to the setting of the scenes in the film.

The film is a thriller from start to finish. It is a well made horror film which you cannot peel your eyes, or ears, away from even for a few seconds. It captures its audience with a brilliant story, good performances and a very good production value. It definitely deserves to be considered among the list of the most iconic of films made in the sci-fi and horror genres.

The Informant!: A whistleblower turns defendant

There are many instances where films made on true life events are captivating and made splendidly. However, there are even more instances where such films based on true stories do not quite work out and end up being just average efforts on the part of the filmmaker. Quite often, this can depend on the story which forms the base of the script and how interesting the true events were, and the way in which the director chooses to make the film in the end. Such is a case with director Steven Soderbergh’s 2009 film The Informant!, the story for which is derived from a book based on true events.

Mark Whitacre was a Corporate Vice President with lysine developing company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) in 1992. When he informs his superiors of a case of corporate espionage involving his own company, they decide to approach the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to smoke out the mole and arrest the culprits who are blackmailing the company. Things turn hilariously unprecedented when Mark himself confesses to the FBI agents of his company’s involvement in international price fixing scandals and agrees to be an informant to the FBI thereby making himself a mole in the company. Mark informs the agents that his company’s top executives, as well as himself, would meet with competitors to fix the price and volume of the products being manufactured. The FBI agents now ask Mark to collect evidence against his bosses which requires him to go through inconvenient situations like wearing a wire, tapping phone conversations and video recording meetings involving international executives. Mark struggles to deal with his desire to help the FBI, show loyalty to his company, manage his family and sort out his personal hidden agenda as the story goes on.

The film has several twists and turns which come about through revelations made by the characters. The protagonist in the form of Mark Whitacre is an exceptionally neurotic character which is revealed in due course of the film. The film has a first-person narration during its entire course which is provided by the protagonist. Although narration is considered a faux-pas in filmmaking, the format used in this film does not aid the storytelling process but is mostly random musings on the part of the character. As the film goes on, it is evident that the character cannot be trusted because of the situations in the story and the increasing randomness and patchy intervals at which the narration occurs. As such, the narration helps with the comedic effect of the film and helps establish the confused identity of the protagonist. The narration eventually makes the audience lose its previous apathy for the protagonist which is later replaced with bemusement at his chosen course of action.

The Informant! isn’t a particularly splendid film. It is an average turn out from Steven Soderbergh from a twisting case that started with a whistleblower.