Screaming in Silence: ‘Sound of Metal’ Review and Analysis

Jack Denison on 15 May 2021

*this review contains spoilers*

Sound of Metal is Darius Marder’s (co-writer of The Place Beyond The Pines) tremendous directorial debut. It is a film that pulls the rug from under you and tells the story of Ruben (Riz Ahmed), a recovering drug addict and heavy-metal drummer who begins to lose his hearing.

The film is worthy of merit for many of its endeavours, particularly with its approach from the outset. Ahmed, who lassoed the spotlight with his terrific performance in HBO’s The Night Of, has raised the bar even higher in this latest project. He catapults himself wholeheartedly into his job; spending six months learning to play the drums and becoming well versed in American Sign Language, even opting to communicate with the director and co-stars in this manner and often wearing ‘auditory blockers’, saying that “I couldn’t hear anything, including the sound of my own voice”. Furthermore, his co-stars at the programme where he undergoes a profound character transformation, are members of the deaf community. Paul Raci, who plays Joe the programme founder, grew up with deaf parents and is a prominent figure in the community. This moral approach to the material pays off nobly, with a sensitive and sincere execution.

Witnessing Ruben as he tries to grapple with a world that rapidly and silently melts around him is terrifyingly tangible, jarring and upsetting. The cast (although particular applause to Ahmed) deliver an electrifying, powerhouse of performances that has our undivided attention and makes the film spark, cementing its incredibly intimate and tender depiction of his world-shattering crisis. The sound mixing adds a viscerally potent dimension to the experience. By splitting the film from the perspective of a world full of crazy sounds and his muffled, silenced world as he tries to process his grief, we are left with a tragically isolating insight and downright frightening realism.

The script excels in its incredibly profound character study and thematic philosophies, speaking volumes. It focuses on a troubled, volatile character who is haunted by his demons, calling him back to a life of heroin addiction, who eats, breathes and sleeps metal music but is then suddenly plunged into an icy world of silence and stillness. This razor-sharp radical transformation makes witnessing his hardship and internalising and rationalising of his plight both deeply devastating and harrowing. Ruben is tasked with getting up at 5am to be left alone with his thoughts, a pad of paper, a pen and no distractions. What results is a glimpse into his brittle split-personality, of his old self and his sober self, explosive yet extremely disciplined and earnest, as he is taken over by a tantrum, pummelling a donut into smithereens before putting it delicately back together, multiple times.

Image Credit: Jeff Mitchell, Phoenix Film Festival

Marder executes a profound examination of a tormented soul and the concept of inner stillness. Even though Ruben’s life thrived on chaotic, loud music, we learn that by nature his spirit is soft but misdirected; he often starts his days making healthy smoothies and listening to French Jazz. During his reconciliation with his new world at the programme, we find him in a deep meditative state over a piano melody, integrating and connecting with his new family and generally, the happiest we have seen him. However, when he gets tugged back by his old life and sees a video of Lou (breaking the no-technology rule of the programme), his meditative reformation is intercepted and he invests in an implant that will get him back to not just a life of hearing but to his old life as well.

This feeds into an incredibly impactful scene where Ruben bids farewell to Joe saying that he has to “save his life” and that he can’t just “diddle around” and “have nothing”. Naturally, Joe is distraught by this insult saying that Ruben “looks and sounds like an addict”. This integrally powerful scene demonstrates how Ruben’s self-destructive ego pushes him away from achieving inner stillness, whilst hurting those around him, much like how he acted with his blaring, frenzied past life and how can’t make peace with himself. Ruben returns to the outside world to rekindle his relationship with Lou, to find that she has moved on, unshackled by her demons and has found her inner stillness.

This final act revelation is nothing short of tragic and pulls on the audience’s heartstrings when we learn with Ruben that after burning the bridge with his best shot at inner peace, he actually integrated better with his family at the programme, than when he forcefully tries to reintegrate back into the spoken world. Ruben justifies his exit by saying “that’s life, it just passes” and we truly feel for him because he hasn’t made peace with the fact that the world keeps spinning and as we see, it doesn’t wait for him. This leads to a strong symbolic bow as the film’s curtains close, showing Ruben pensively entranced by the ringing of a bell tower, before he decides to remove his hearing aid; back to silence.

Sound of Metal is the most genuine and raw story Hollywood has had to offer recently and deserves every ounce of praise. A film that screams in silence, and it should certainly not go unheard.

Image Credit: Substream Magazine

Cherry review: An epic and sobering tale

Jack Denison on 10 April 2021

Cherry is an epic and sobering tale of a misfit-turned-war veteran-turned outlaw, who is demonised by his PTSD and free falls through the horrors of opioid addiction and performs heists to fuel his dependency. Tom Holland plays our protagonist, whilst Ciara Bravo is our supporting actor who gets entangled in her husband’s crisis.

Directors, Anthony and Joe Russo (Avengers: Endgame, Infinity War) quickly suck audiences into the character’s world. For the most part, it has our attention in a jaw lock (a third act that wallows a bit too much, overstaying its welcome) as we witness the whirlwind of tragedy contaminating the lives of our characters. It’s a rollercoaster of an experience and wildly entertaining. Holland delivers a powerful performance, graduating from the superhero, tight-suit genre promisingly. With Bravo’s performance thrown into the equation, we quickly latch onto the characters’ decaying romance and are thoroughly invested.

At its nucleus, Cherry targets some solemn, ambitious themes and voices some political comments, illustrating their dramatic ramifications. We are pushed through the film’s skeleton with our misguided protagonist through the betrayal of the military, the ensuing silenced horrors of PTSD and washed up effects of dehumanisation and disassociation; being victimised by the wrath of the opiate crisis, turning to criminal activities and generally falling through the cracks, the execution of its subject material is hard-hitting and unflinching, especially in its depiction of the military’s unsavoury ego.

Image Credit: Hideaway Entertainment

From a directorial perspective, the Russo Brothers effectively put us behind the eyes of our protagonist. The portrayal of his alienation from the world, whether it may be silhouetted bankers rejecting him with disembodied voices or all of his uncanny-looking colleagues at work coming from the same bloodline, is captured creatively and as audiences, we are won over. Similarly, in the first act, the hyper-colourised sequences represent a poignant comment on the vision of nostalgia, mummified with an aesthetic that’s doused in gloss. The slightly slow-mo movements, the muffling of background clatter, the blurring of the peripherals and dream-like score rings louder and glistens further for those through the looking glass of a crippling addiction.

However, throughout Cherry, we are hit with ambivalence over how the story’s substance is decorated in such an artificial aesthetic. With the Russo Brothers’ victory in wrapping up the Avengers franchise with a bang, its confetti has drifted over into their next project here, resembling some heavy political issue arrows being fired from hipsters. Simply put, the project is over-directed and over-polished, resulting in a vain film that loves itself just a bit too much. Consequently, the film’s loyalty to its subject matter and the authenticity that it delivers comes into question. By choosing to topple in favour of its envisioned aesthetic, in its battle scenes, for example, it falls on its own sword. The perfectly stable boom that sways through the battlefield in a single take illuminating different perfectly choreographed frenzies makes us feel like we’re watching a multimillion-dollar, highly stressful Hollywood film set, rather than immersed and lost in the chaos of the battlefield. Similarly, it feels like at times it overcooks its drama, resulting in some overly theatrical sequences that are impaled by redundancy and some tough drug depiction that assassinates expected discretion, ultimately endangering itself as a gimmick.

By puffing out its chest over its aesthetic, it fails to delegate merit and intelligence towards the unfolding of its narrative, leaving us knowing what’s around every corner with predictable plot points. In its defence, its success in executing its biblically sized story (that we are constantly reminded about with disruptive frames bookmarking which act we are entering) is well ironed out in its sequencing that moves with a brazen pace. However, this is done at the expense of an overly comfortable voice-over narration that carries the delivery of the narrative on its back for the entire journey.

Image Credit: Empire

‘News of the World’ review: Woody gets a live-action treatment

Jack Denison on 23 February 2021

News of the World tells the story of Captain Kidd (Tom Hanks) in middle America, post-civil war, who plods between small towns delivering the news and stories of the country. His equilibrium is thrown off balance when he meets Johanna  (Helena Zengel), a young girl who had been captured by the Kiowa tribe. The film follows his endeavours to take her back to her family.  

Director, Paul Greengrass, who previously collaborated with Hanks on Captain Phillips, dominates with an impressive set and costume design, making audiences feel like they’re witnessing an American Gothic painting brought to life and stretched over two hours. By night, we are presented with some fantastic stills of midnight ghost towns, moon-lit shudders, amber windows and oil lamps, sparking a dark and brooding atmosphere. By day, we are immersed into the verisimilitude of a comical Wild Wild West town; the perpetually muddy main strips, bustling saloons, neighing stables, bells chiming, people whistling, the clatter of villagers starting their day – a buzzing hive smothered by the epic American landscape.  

Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography and his use of wide-angle frames is accentuated by some gorgeous images of the twilight hours and its rising purple tones casting shadows over the hills, creating a beautifully placid fragrance in the air.  

Hanks and Zengel wear their roles well, particularly Hanks, who is renowned for his  humbleness and good nature, makes for a perfect fit as a paternal character. The film’s first old-school, fun cowboy shootout with some rugged bandits and a creatively horrific  alternative to gunpowder pushes our familiarity with Mr Beloved Worldwide as a heroic  gunslinger but does not disappoint.

Credit: Universal Pictures

Greengrass plays it very safe in News of the World, which makes it hard to flesh out any  valid flaws. However, some complacencies present themselves, such as within its  dialogue. When a shady, menacing crew try to take Johanna off Captain Kidd’s hands for  a price, which results in an altercation, one of the members threatens him saying “I’ll be  seeing you Captain…I’m coming for you as soon as I’m done with these blues”. Not only  is this on-the-nose, but it also frustratingly spoils the possible element of surprise later on  in the narrative with his return, as we already know from this confrontation that he  presents himself as a potential antagonistic conflict, resulting in what is some pretty  complacent writing.  

Captain Kidd’s quest in bringing the news of the country to these isolated, bubbled village  communities resembles a lighthouse beacon illuminating the scary unknown abyss of the  expansive lands of America for its disconnected sleepy towns in an age of tremendous  darkness before a world of technology, science (labelling the misunderstood as ‘cursed’),  mass-communication (other than ‘word is’) and humanitarian justice. This metaphorical  plague is manifested in and personified by our two protagonists, who are both isolated  and wrestling with an existential ambiguity over where they belong and where they ought  to go.  

News of the World doesn’t conquer any new grounds or put itself up to any real risk but instead communicates a very necessary sentiment. The timeless power of stories is what triumphs here. His stories are the only light that echoes through a country muffled by darkness, a country riddled by desperate turbulence, confusion and anger, in need of severe enlightenment and escapism, whilst on the brink of a new era. For these reasons,  News of the World couldn’t have come out at a better time. 

Header image credit: The New York Times

Would a ‘Harry Potter’ TV series be magical?

Séamus O'Hanlon on 10 February 2021

I groaned when I first read the online headline speculating that Harry Potter may be getting a television reboot but was this reaction genuine concern or instant snobbery? The article, was in fact, referring to rumours that HBO (Max) may be making a prequel, spin-off, world-building or redo of the books, TV series. “Broad ideas” at the moment, as the sources who divulged to the Hollywood Reporter, put it. Many news outlets have reported on this possible development, which doesn’t mean it is going to happen, but it does make it feel like another adaptation of Harry Potter is inevitable. The film series in so many ways feels like it has just finished, concluded to great success both financial and cultural. Harry Potter was a phenomenon, but doesn’t that involve moving on? 

Harry Potter’s deep cultural legacy is still intact and beloved, despite its author, who I’ll get to soon. As reported, the past hyper-surreal year was a time for finding comfort, so not surprisingly, we re-watched the films and re-read the books during lockdown. Since 2011, when the last film of the series came out, the world’s cultural landscape has changed dramatically. Particularly British broadcasters who have struggled to remain dominant and relevant with the arrival of the new digital giants: Netflix, Amazon and every other American based company building entertainment empires. One decade on and the Britain proud of the whole film series too feels lost.

An HBO production. A deserving stamp of quality, glossy sounding, adult. HBO shows are solidly good, well made, high concept. HBO has certainly produced works of art, but it is still cable, unfit for the hypothetical Harry Potter series that should be available for everyone to tune in to around a cup of tea. HBO in the past was the big expense for many, a costly must-have, which was also available in Britain through private networks including it, like Sky Atlantic. Netflix, for all its criticism, is at least more affordable considering people’s budgets and that would be the first hesitation about creating any more Harry Potter universe content in general. Milk, milk the fans. 

HBO Max is even more egregious a choice. Launched only in 2020 it has a grand 17.2 million activated users as of the New Year. It is part of HBO’s comeback, the fight against the new kids, but what it offers hasn’t quite been established yet. Its parent company is also WarnerMedia, making it feel likelier that the Warner Bros. film series will receive a TV adaption, though that decision is still not up to them. Subscription models tease out commitment. For me, Disney+ and other exclusive, claim-back-the-money platforms, could be a worrying trend. Massive businesses creating new companies which make their titles, classics, more expensive in the general market is not something studios and the industry should be proud of. Consumers spending silly money, so HBO or some other private monolith, can have their latest venture be a success, is something that this series ideally should not support. Exclusivity: promoting greed, creating avarice at the top. 

It is well known to audiences, but misunderstood to the corporate world, that remakes require plenty of passed time, patience and organic relevance for the new work succeed. Genre is important and the prime example of a piece of culture that deserves to be rebooted, reimagined and redefine is Hanna Barbara’s Scooby-Doo. Every single teen TV show is inspired by Scooby Do, some heavily, and every series for all the family since Harry Potter is compared to Rowing’s creation, often fairly. Harry Potter is a different type of timeless, far more difficult to unwrap when the books were written in the ‘90s, long ago actually but not exactly unmodern.

The Hogwarts grounds are beautiful, the steam train departing from 9 and ¾ purposefully historic, an artefact linking to the books to the times of classic British literature. The films do a tremendous job of depicting the castle as a feature of the Scottish Highlands, making Hogwarts recognisable, an honouree, fictional castle. This is a visual image that captures the whole series and it is preserved rightly for all in the Warner Bros. studios in London. This is the one single image that fans have of the place, even if the castle was replicated inch by inch in a new reboot, would this very British legacy be marred by a future remake choosing to produce outside of the British Isles? The great and fantastic of British and Irish actors made the film series, fought for by Rowling, and simply there hasn’t been enough time for there to be years of new homegrown talent to call on in a recast. Americans got to be cast in their own film series, it is not a right for them to be cast in the original, superior one. However, with all this talk of nationality, there is the valid potential for a new future recast of creative diversity that is more explicit about British history.

Brexit. Since 2011, British identity has taken a knocking. Brexit and immigration, opening a can of worms – like the slugs Ron spews out in that grim scene. Pandora’s box has been opened, which is not even dramatic with the last several years of news coverage, and Britain has finally left the European Union. 

Years of discourse about immigration asks whether Britain is actually a post-racial society, that has rightly been invalidated by the Windrush Scandal breaking and the subsequent Black Lives Matter movement of the past summer. Some people think of Hogwarts as a grammar school, I think of it more internationally; a haven inclusive of the native British Wizarding nobility to children from the ‘Commonwealth’ for want of a better word. That is a fan theory, but what is real, is that the British education system has always been revised, negatively and positively, by immigration from Ireland to modern refugees. The politics of the day are infused in the later Harry Potter books, the opening of book six particularly. Today, we might not like our politics, but it must be reflected in national stories like Harry Potter, maybe not literally. The European Triwizard cup slashing its rules alongside our European partnership. Or the Hogwarts Train changing colours in a plume of smoke as it passes the Scottish border, possibly. Colour-blind casting can be done effectively with Dickens, Harry Potter isn’t that much of a stretch. Black Hermione in a remake, in the right hands, could be done very well and meaningfully. A new series would always have something important to say about whichever years it is made in. 

Sometimes when you read a book so closely, you feel like you know the author too. Having spoken to many people about JK Rowling’s comments about transgender people, there has been mostly disappointment. It doesn’t make you a bleeding-heart liberal to be frustrated about Rowling’s repeated statements and cancel culture is only so useful a label. Literary icons don’t always have to write edifying, magnanimous prose like they’re running for President of the World but when their opinions cause additional controversy to sensitive issues it’s clear to me that it was a wrong thing to say. Celebrities on Twitter, politicians and vocal authors can say a lot loudly, but we should allow the discussed people to speak themselves, not for them, and listen to them first. There are consequences when a ‘culture war’ is entangled with the creator of a literary classic, one of them is audiences being split and hesitant about further endowing Rowling by paying to watch any type of Harry Potter TV series. 

An egalitarian Harry Potter TV series would emphasise affordability over profits, maybe a joint collaboration with British broadcasters and streaming services, and would be global, diverse, incorporating contemporary British politics to deliver a new, universal story of love which it is. Wait longer for a new adaption, wait for the right director, right team and integral to television, the right showrunner, whoever that person may be. Change it up a bit, maybe Draco and Harry get together – I half jest. Keep and enhance the film series’ excellence. Potter will return one day.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Do biopics romanticise the lives of real people?

Hannah Spruce on 10 February 2021

Over the last few years biopics have dominated the cinema scene, with high budgets and eager audiences, the genre has seen continued box office success. Biopics of musicians have seen a particular rise in popularity, spurred by the success of Bohemian Rhapsody about the eccentric Queen frontman Freddie Mercury, which became the highest-grossing biographical film of all time.

By focusing on a real-life subject, the film has a guaranteed audience and established plotline. Alongside this, a musical biopic has the marketability of a successful soundtrack. However, despite their commercial success biopics have been criticised for being motivated by profit and lacking substance. Quentin Tarantino has stated that biopics were ‘just big excuses for actors to win Oscars’ in response to their increasing prevalence. Even beyond a directorial perspective, the genre is often criticised by the devoted fans who have followed the lives and careers of these celebrities. When condensing the lives of such well-known figures, there is a tendency to underplay or overemphasise certain elements to produce the most engaging storyline.

The allure of stars like Freddie Mercury and John Lennon is not always enough to guarantee a captivating sequence of events, therefore drama often needs to be cultivated for the sake of viewership. Nowhere Boy, a biopic detailing the teenage years of John Lennon, suggests a complicated and uncomfortably intimate relationship between Lennon and his mother Julia. Similarly, Bohemian Rhapsody has been criticised for its flexible chronology and convoluted depictions of Mercury’s relationship with Jim Hutton, Paul Prenter and Mary Austin.

A recent source of controversy is the upcoming film Stardust, which details the life of David Bowie. The film was not approved by Bowie’s estate and does not contain any of his music, which resulted in many fans not supporting the film’s production. Although David Bowie is a celebrity, his life is not guaranteed personal property, which raises questions surrounding the integrity of these films. In comparison, Queen band members Brian May and Roger Taylor served as consultants on Bohemian Rhapsody and for Rocketman Elton John and his husband David Furnish were producers. It could be argued that such direct involvement encourages a level of self-indulgence or bias in the way events are depicted, but it ensures that any significant changes were approved. 

Consultation seems necessary when dealing with recent celebrities, however, when exploring the lives of historical figures, it becomes more complicated. The audience is less likely to recognise historical inconsistencies, meaning the film could perpetuate false ideas or assumptions. With historical biopics, there is a desire to romanticise a forgotten era of history and humanize previously elusive figures. Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film Marie Antoinette combines these factors, by merging modern features with a historical landscape. The lavish colours and set design deviates from historical accuracy. Depictions of historical figures such as Marie Antoinette can be more flexible to a higher extent than modern musicians due to the lack of personal claim over their stories. However, the people in biopics can easily become caricatures, which should be considered when evaluating their role and actions within these films

Ultimately, biopics should not be constrained to follow a specific timeline unless claiming to be historically accurate. Most biopics use a level of creative licencing to meet time constraints, without detriment to the person or the story that is being conveyed. However, when using unsubstantiated or fabricated events, it is the duty of the filmmaker to ensure a divide between the authentic and genuine.

Studio Fiasco, Netflix Eclipse & Death to Popcorn – Interview with BAFTA Nominee, Mark Herman

Jack Denison on 22 January 2021

When the opportunity presented itself to interview British filmmaker, Mark Herman, it was too bountiful of an opportunity to not seize, considering he’s a successful BAFTA nominee and director/screenwriter behind British gems such as Brassed Off and Little Voice, but also the highly received The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.

With British cinema seeing new heights each year and playing an active role in the production of Hollywood blockbusters, I thought I’d ask Herman for his insights on the inner workings of the industry. He confessed that he feels “currently very embittered by it” and that “the only thing I know about for sure, personally, are some of the frustrations caused by the workings of the industry”.

His last film, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, a powerful story centred on the relationship of a Nazi Officer’s son and his relationship with a Jewish boy in a concentration camp, was released twelve years ago. Herman remembers that the year after its release in 2008, “I seemed to get sent nothing but projects about The Holocaust, when in fact that would be the last thing I would want to be doing next”. He disapproves of Studios’ behaviour, saying “There is a lack of such financier bravery these days, nobody will stick their neck out and take a risk”. He voices how the industry has been on a creative downhill tumble for decades, saying that twenty years ago the “hoops and hurdles a director would have to go through and over were so much fewer. There was a trust in directors’ track records that is not so obvious today.” He punctuates his disenchantment saying “Nowadays it feels like everything has to be safe: either adaptation of successful novels, or sequels in big hit franchises”. Clearly, the industry has had its philosophies re-calibrated, particularly after the collaboration and selling-of-its-soul to Hollywood. Now, all that’s on the menu are micro-budget arthouse flicks that don’t get the circulation they deserve, or colossal budgeted, formulaic studio blockbusters that you can’t escape from.

As a spectator, he articulates how the industry has become numb and is in need of a wake-up call, saying “instead of having films that split opinion, that some people might hate but some just adore, what gets churned out are films that neither really offend nor really delight anybody.” Its systematic, cancerous values have cursed and swindled filmmakers with a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. It has cranked up the dog-eat-dog intensity and has fundamentally strangled the life out of the creativity and arts the industry was founded on, that has now been morphed into a relentless business machine with the maximisation of money in its crosshairs and nothing else. Herman solidifies the toxically dysfunctional behaviour of the industry saying “The tail wags the dog in a way”. Cinema finds itself in a bleak dystopian world, having suffocated and neglected the other equally superior services of film; to make us feel, dream and escape our reality.

The industry is juggling several gruelling existential crises and it would be fair to say it’s being put through the wringer. With the recent news of juggernaut cinema chain, Cineworld, suddenly going into a long haul hibernation to save itself from bankruptcy and then mammoth Hollywood
conglomerate, Warner Bros, deciding to release its entire slate of films for 2021 online, it seems that the exhibition sector is lost in no mans land. Both of these strong footed companies haven’t just been outmuscled directly by Coronavirus, but also indirectly by celebrity assassin, Netflix (last victim, Blockbuster). The streaming service’s popularity has taken spectatorship by storm, revolutionising the game, also being catalysed by the orders of sedentarism from the pandemic. Herman argues that younger generations “have got very used to gobbling up ‘movies’ on smaller and smaller screens, and after this year of many people not even experiencing a trip to the movies, folk do get used to alternatives.” With the ball now being in the cinema’s court to win audiences back over, they “will need to make ‘going to the movies’ a little bit more special than it has been in the last decades. Popcorn is no longer enough (..thank God)”. Or will this be the final nail in the coffin?

This fruitful interview aroused many concerns regarding the fate of cinema and what’s in store for it next. Are we on the brink of an ice age, or gearing up for a renaissance? Whatever may be at the root of the disappointments from the industry; the churning out of lethargic, humdrum blockbusters or the ebbing away of the cinema-trip culture, we need to remind ourselves that the industry is founded on supply and demand. Thus, to save the industry, as audiences, we must act; the blood is on our hands.

Header image credit: Aesthetica Short Film Festival