Showing posts with label Martin Freeman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Freeman. Show all posts

Monday, March 7, 2016

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot



**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Glen Ficarra and John Requa/Starring: Tina Fey, Billy Bob Thornton, Margot Robbie, Martin Freeman, Alfred Molina, Christopher Abbott and Cherry Jones

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot; militarized code for WTF, is also the new film by directors Glen Ficarra and John Requa, which is based on journalist Kim Barker's The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have to admit that I wasn't eager to see the film. Tina Fey, who plays Ms. Barker, has proven to be less funny in her big screen forays than her television ventures. The other strike against this movie is its subject matter. I have to say I've had my fill with films about the Afghan War and don't relish more, though I had just seen Danish director Tobias Lindholm's excellent Afghan War drama A War only days before. Ficarra and Requa's film is a comedy/drama hybrid, though it skews more to the latter as the story unfolds. WTF isn't much of a drama and I can't remember laughing or even smiling during the film's comedic moments. Though a story of a journalist covering a war has comedic potential, Ficarra and Requa's can't coax anything funny from the material. I haven't read Kim Barker's book, so I can't comment on its qualities or lack thereof but I hope the film is an aberration. The film doesn't seem to be about anything more than self-absorbed, privileged, white, western journalists and their silly romantic lives and careers rather than the bloody conflict itself. Little in the film is taken seriously; everyone seems buffoonish though nothing is very funny and no one is very amusing.

Barker is deployed to Afghanistan by her paper after her bosses decide sending single journalists is preferable to sending those with spouses and kids. The fact that Barker has a serious boyfriend doesn't factor into their decision. We know from the outset that her time in Afghanistan will place a terrific strain on her relationship.
With her mind full of anxieties about her boyfriend and the task ahead, she arrives in Kabul and is met by her driver and interpreter; Fahim (Christopher Abbott). She is driven to the mostly-male media compound; a lively hive of journalists seeking stories, danger, after-hours drinking and sexual decompression. Upon meeting an Australian peer named Tanya (Margot Robbie), Barker is immediately asked if her security team is available for sex, which serves as a kind of initiation into the fast and loose culture that prevails on the premises. In explaining the advantages of being outnumbered by men, Tanya tells Barker a woman who isn't a catch back home becomes a sought-after prize in female-deficient Afghanistan. Committed to her boyfriend, Barker finds fending off aggressive advances by male colleagues and Afghan men alike to be a daily struggle.

As the story unfolds, we meet other characters who play a part in Barker's experiences. She becomes acquainted with Iain MacKelpie (Martin Freeman); a Scottish Lothario who is at odds with Kim's bodyguard Nic (Stephen Peacocke, who resembles a buff Hugh Grant); General Hollanek (Billy Bob Thornton), who allows her to tag along with his soldier's operations, and Ali Massoud Sadiq (Alfred Molina); an Afghan public official who Barker must charm to gain access to key interviewees and inaccessible places. But she finds she must also resist his advances, which are persistent and frequent.
The theme of a woman at the mercy and admiration of men is supposed to make Barker empathetic to the Afghan women, who endure the same.

We see some of Barker's reporting acumen while she rides along with Hollanek's units. During a road-side ambush, she quickly grabs her camera and works her way toward the front line of the firefight, which earns her the General's admiration. Later, after the General's unit becomes frustrated with what they believe is a Taliban mission to keep a village well from becoming operational, Barker encounters a group of women who take her aside to inform her of their culpability in the well's destruction. As Barker explains to the General shortly thereafter, the well denies the women the pleasure of gathering at the river for conversation and gossip. Subsequently, the general leaves the well in a rubble-strewn state of disrepair. The scene is supposed to highlight how the military is often ill-trained to deal with many aspects of foreign cultures, particularly the needs of women; which Barker is able to gain insight to in her unique role as a female reporter.

But aside from that interesting scene, the movie seems to focus almost entirely on who is sleeping with whom and who is trying to sleep with Tanya and Barker. Scenes of dancing, drinking, and partying journalists become almost a default visual.

But other issues eventually come to the forefront. Time away from her boyfriend leads to an incident where Barker catches him with another woman while on Skype, which seems inevitable. Rendered single, Barker becomes the romantic target of MacKelpie; the unlikeliest of seducers. As time passes, the two slowly become an item until MacKelpie invites her to return to Scotland with him, which she begins to consider.

Barker learns from her superiors at her paper that the war is rapidly losing its value as something news-worthy, which forces her to search for more compelling stories and interviews. The competition to find a juicy scoop becomes fierce, as Barker becomes the victim of Tanya's story-grabbing machinations. Furious, she returns home to face her boss; who, to her surprise, isn't a man but a woman named Geri Taub (Cherry Jones).

Having become accustomed to her bizarre life in Afghanistan, which she calls "the new normal," Barker grows weary of the scene, which leads to sweeping changes in her career and romantic life.

One might think the story would be irresistibly entertaining, but even though its source material is drawn from true-life accounts, there is nevertheless something tired and overly familiar about the story and characters. It isn't that Tina Fey is miscast or her acting skills aren't up to the challenge. What was surprising about Fey's performance wasn't its comedic aspects but the fact that she has dramatic aptitude. I can hardly fault her for the film's flaws. Billy Bob Thornton, though only onscreen occasionally, proved to be a fun and quirky presence and one of the film's best features.

So what is wrong with the film? It isn't funny, for one. It isn't an affective drama either. The Afghan world is purports to be partially about doesn't seem like a real place but something half-imagined and half-realized. No one in the film seems to give a damn about the country or people, who are engaged in a war that won't end. I didn't really want to know that much about Barker, whose life is supposed to be dramatically altered by her experiences though we don't see any evidence of such. Apart from feeling guilt about a soldier whose maiming she feels responsible for, nothing about her time in Afghanistan seems to matter much. All that does seem to matter is her career.

In reading the New York Times Arts section this morning, I noticed that the film fared badly at the box office, while the animated family feature Zootopia cleaned up. I don't normally pay attention to box office tallies but it seemed fitting that the film should lose out to a kid's flick. I happened to see Zootopia with my daughter over the weekend and found it to be a more pleasurable experience. Yes, I know they are two very different kinds of movies but being that I always prefer adult films to anything animated should tell you something about my estimation of the film. Somehow the animated characters seemed less cartoonish.

Monday, December 22, 2014

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies



**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Peter Jackson/Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm and Billy Connolly

So we've come to the end of a trilogy, that quite frankly, is something of a non-event. I can't remember ever seeing a Jupiter-sized budgeted franchise with a plot predicated on adventure and thrills fail to deliver much in the way of...well...er...uh, adventure. The total expenditures for the trilogy--the latest estimates anyway--are close to $800 million. If I were to use a precious gem simile, I might say the series looks like a diamond but cuts like Cubic zirconia.

Peter Jackson's other trilogy was armed with bloated budgets but it delivered as promised. So much seemed at stake in Middle-Earth in those films. With The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, I only felt impatience and relief that such a middling series was finally coming to an end.

The film is no cheap-jack production. With its turgid budget, one expects a film to at least meet high visual standards and it succeeds on that count admirably. In retrospect, as I thought about Laketown burning in the opening scene, I asked myself who really got torched; the citizens of that charred municipality or those of us who shelled out the scratch to sit through the flick? Yeah, I know Pete Jackson didn't coerce me into seeing his movie, but I had hoped the series might conclude satisfactorily and redeem the other film's mediocrity.

I can't imagine anyone would need a synopsis for a story so universally familiar. As one might expect, the Battle with Smaug carries the opening sequence. Bard the Guardsman (the charismatic Luke Evans) manages to free himself from Laketown's jail to take on the terrible dragon single-handedly. Unfortunately his arrows glance off Smaug's impenetrable, scaly chest. As the beast reduces the town to cinders, the legendary Black Arrow manages to find its way into Bard's hands via the desperate exertions of his son. Aware of the vulnerable spot on Smaug's nigh-impregable chest, he takes aim. We all know what happens next.

Meanwhile, the dwarves occupy Lonely Mountain. Thorin resists the company's and Bilbo's pleas that he satisfy the conditions of the dwarves' Laketown contract with the promised gold payment. The staggering cache of gold seduces Thorin, leaving him deaf to entreaty. Before long, the townspeople, lead by Bard himself and the Wood Elves, represented by Thranduil (Lee Pace) lay claim to part of the treasure, which creates a combustible situation which is hardly ameliorated by Gandalf's intervention.

Overcome with gold delirium, Thorin chooses war over the dwarves', woodelves' and the men's reasonable claims to a portion of the treasure. But as the armies assume battle positions outside the gates of Lonely Mountain, Thorin's hopelessly outnumbered company is joined by his cousin Dain's force, which arrives just as the battle is to commence. While the dwarves, former Laketown inhabitants and the woodelves wage war over the treasure, legions of orcs, lead by the brutish Azog, make their way to Lonely Mountain to forcefully establish their own claim to the treasure. And as the three armies' blades and arrows are drawn, Azog's invasion force arrives. After an initial melee, the orc army pivots to assault the abandoned town where the Laketown residents temporarily reside. Bard organizes the defense of the town as all armies clash, while Thorin and Bilbo race to the hill where Azog views the battle in an attempt to slay him; an act they hope will weaken the automatous orc army. The attempt on Azog's life leads to an inevitable showdown between Azog and Thorin, which shares screen-time with the battle at large. The various outcomes need not be mentioned here.

Aside from a few moments in the early battle and the impressive CGI we've come to expect from Jackson's Middle-Earth series, everything seems pro forma. Part of the problem is trying to feel the tension of battles already beautifully and excitingly depicted in the Rings Trilogy.

We've seen it all before. We've already seen the orcs and their nightmarish, mindless titans laying siege to bastions. Are we watching The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings? I sometimes couldn't tell the difference.

The arrival of the Eagles in the novel was something miraculous, but in the film their appearance is anti-climactic, as are the goblins that arrive late to join the fray.

I never cared for the liberties Jackson visited on the story, such as Legolas' presence and the contrived romance between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). I don't know why Jackson felt it necessary to connect The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings when each could have easily stood alone. Yes, there is a subtle connection in the books but nothing that would call for what Jackson perpetrates. I realize it isn't really that big a deal. My real beef is the story and how it fails to seduce us as Frodo's quest did for three epic-length films. And of course the criticism that Jackson split one novel into three films has always been a valid gripe.

Too bad, I thought as I left the theater, but also good riddance. I think I've had more than my fill of Middle-Earth. 6 epic-length films in thirteen years have worn me out. I feel I'm ready to retire to the Shire too.

I'm sure I'll revisit the Rings Trilogy again and again but as for this trilogy--I don't think so.

I think Jackson is a very talented director and I'm eager to see what he pursues next. I'm sure he's quite ready to move on, as we all must feel. I'm relieved Tolkien has nothing significant for Jackson or anyone else to adapt, though I wouldn't discount someone's ill-advised attempt to bring The Silmarillion to the screen.

As of this blog-post, the film's opening, worldwide receipts are somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 million--a number that will no doubt swell obscenely with more box office. I'm sure the millions have entranced MGM and New Line Cinema execs as the mountains of gold mesmerized Thorin. As the bromide goes; the end justifies the means...at least for the guys in suits.

If only those grosses had bought an absorbing experience.