Cinema Catala Hollywood Movie Review

Posts Tagged ‘narrative’

Despite arriving on North American screens mid-way through the month of November with a cast that features three previous Academy Award nominees (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson) and a similarly honored writer/director (Richard Curtis), Pirate Radio is not being touted as Oscar bait. In fact, it comes to the U.S. with a less-than-stellar pedigree, having received lukewarm reviews during its U.K. theatrical run earlier this year and having subsequently been re-cut at Focus Features’ request. The result, although uneven, is generally enjoyable, especially for those who attend with the right mindset. Character and narrative are secondary concerns for a movie primarily driven to provide a Valentine to ’60s rock-and-roll.

It’s 1966 and the young people of Great Britain are less-than-happy with the domestic radio situation, which is almost all talk and news (with a little jazz thrown in for good measure). Into this breach come the offshore pirate radio stations, the most infamous of which is “Radio Rock,” a 24/7 rock-and-roll operation that saturates the airwaves from a ship anchored in international waters and boasts a listening audience north of 20 million. Radio Rock is the brainchild of Quentin (Bill Nighy) and features some of the best known disc jockeys, including an American known only as The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman); the world-renowned Gavin (Rhys Ifans); Bob (Ralph Brown), the 3-6 a.m. guy whom almost no one has seen; and Simon (Chris O’Dowd), who’s convinced no one likes him. Into this setting comes Carl (Tom Sturridge). After being kicked out of school, Carl’s mom (Emma Thompson) sends him to spend some time on the Radio Rock ship under the watchful eye of his godfather, Quentin. Life aboard the ship is all sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll (although the sex only arrives once every two weeks when a boatload of women arrive for overnight stays). Carl, a virgin, is at something of a disadvantage when it comes to the opposite sex, but various members of the crew set out to help him remedy the situation. Meanwhile, on land, cabinet member Sir Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), announces his determination to shut down Radio Rock. Since what they’re doing is breaking no current laws, he hires the unfortunately named Twatt (Jack Davenport) to find a loophole that he can turn into a noose.

For the most part, Pirate Radio, called The Boat that Rocked during its U.K. run, is a series of poorly connected vignettes about life aboard the ship during a time when the social views of the government were at odds with those of its younger citizens. As Dormandy and Twatt seek to stifle Radio Rock, we are shown a cross-section of British people enjoying the music in different settings. Some of the episodes work (such as the visit to the ship by Carl’s mother); others exhibit forced comedy that really isn’t funny (Carl’s attempts to lose his virginity, the “duel” between The Count and Gavin). The characters are mostly likable but none exhibits much depth. The best comedic elements derive from Kenneth Branagh’s satirization of ’60s stuffed shirt politicians. At times, it’s as if he’s channeling John Cleese in the way he sends them up. He also has some great lines about the role of government.

Ultimately, however, Pirate Radio is more about the music than it is about anything else. Hardly a scene goes by without at least one classic rock song being played. There are reportedly about 60 clips (ranging from a few bars to full singles) in the movie, which makes it a pretty comprehensive survey of the music of the era, with artists ranging as far and wide as Dusty Springfield, Herb Alpert, Cream, The Who, Cat Stevens, The Beach Boys, and The Moody Blues. Without such a rich and diverse soundtrack, there’s little doubt that Pirate Radio would have been considerably less endearing and enjoyable. Of the features on Richard Curtis’ resume (he wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral and Bridget Jones’ Diary and wrote and directed Love, Actually), this is arguably the least substantive.

Some of the marketing material is hyping the “based on a true story” aspect of the movie although, in fact, this was always intended to tell the tale of a fictional pirate radio boat. Some aspects are loosely based on historical events and some of the characters are composites of real people, but Pirate Radio should not be mistaken for anything other than a creation of a writer’s imagination. The distributors apparently would like us to believe these people actually existed and Radio Rock occupies an almost mythical position in recent British pop history.

Films with large ensemble casts rarely afford opportunities for individual standout performances, and this is no exception. Bill Nighy is amusing but hardly reaches the heights he scaled for his small role in Love, Actually. Philip Seymour Hoffman is very good in what may be his most limited non-cameo since Twister. Tom Sturridge, who is the closest Pirate Radio has to a lead, is a little on the limp side. Those who appreciate trivia will note that this is the first movie in which both Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson have both appeared since the dissolution of their marriage (although they do not share any scenes).

Two obvious cinematic references came to mind while I was watching Pirate Radio. The first, Pump up the Volume, also deals with issues of censorship and free speech over the public airwaves and, as is the case here, it sets up a radio pirate as the champion of a group of individuals whose voices and opinions are often ignored by those in power. The second and more unfortunate reference is Titanic. The scenes with a boat sinking in the North Sea are simply too familiar for the association not to be made.

One of the biggest complaints about the U.K. release of the film was that it’s too long and, even though the American version is shorter by 15 minutes, it still seems like there’s too little content for such a robust running time. Nevertheless, the music is great, the comedy provides occasional laughs, and there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the movie. Distilled to its essence, it represents a respectable diversion.

The familiar looks different at night. Incandescent lights don’t quite chase away the shadows with the effectiveness of the sun. The rooms and hallways of a home, so comforting at noon, can become cloaked with unease past the witching hour. This fear of the dark, one of humankind’s most common phobias, lies at the heart of Paranormal Activity, as a seemingly normal house is turned into a nest of terror once the daylight has faded. Things that go bump in the night can instantly transform the most mundane location into a place of menace. This is a tale of the supernatural, but its strength is that it is rooted in the ordinary. That’s what makes it creepy.

In a sense, this is The Blair Witch Project redux. It replaces the “lost in the woods” premise of the surprise 1999 hit with a “trapped in a house” concept. Both movies were made on shoestring budgets, pretend to be constructed from “lost” documentary footage, use the camera to develop a first-person narrative, and – most importantly – rely on the viewer’s imagination to build upon the horror that is only hinted at on screen. The Blair Witch Project is atmosphere incarnate, and a similar claim can be made about Paranormal Activity. Both movies build momentum by playing upon the expectation that something ominous is going to happen. Since our perspective is constrained by what the camera can see, we are not privy to anything that happens beyond its field of view, although we can often hear sounds. Paranormal Activity’s approach is simple but undeniably effective. Still, those who demand blood, gore, and violence from horror films may be bored by what this one offers. It’s a largely cerebral experience, and it could face the kind of backlash that overwhelmed The Blair Witch Project when it exited its phenomenally successful art house run and opened wide into multiplexes. What was embraced by audiences appreciative of the unconventional was rejected by those weaned on mainstream horror. Only time will tell whether Paranormal Activity’s tighter pacing and different setting will allow it to escape a similar fate.

The premise is simple: Katie (Katie Featherstone) and Micah (Micah Sloat), two twenty-somethings who have moved in together, are beginning to suffer symptoms of “a haunting” in their new San Diego house. For Katie, this is nothing new – she has experienced being watched and followed at different times during her life. For Micah, however, this is exciting stuff. He buys a video camera and sets it on a tripod near their bed to record the room while they sleep at night, and getting everything on film (actually computer) becomes paramount, trumping even the consideration of pacifying his freaked out girlfriend. The camera does its job, with the microphone capturing strange sounds and the viewfinder reflecting disquieting images, like a door opening and closing of its own volition. As Micah becomes more energized by the situation, Katie’s terror escalates. She consults a psychic, who provides two startling pieces of information: the spirit haunting Katie is a demon (not a ghost) and she is the specific target of the supernatural interference – leaving the house will not lessen her plight. And every night, things get worse.

The pillars upon which Paranormal Activity are founded are verisimilitude and simplicity. The movie doesn’t try to do too much. It doesn’t rely on special effects. It’s basically one set (a house), one camera, carefully placed lights, and two actors who are entirely convincing playing these characters. There’s not a lot more to the movie than that. Many of the daytime conversations between Katie and Micah are either extemporized or made to seem that way. Director Oren Peli has crafted the movie with such deceptive simplicity that it almost seems like anyone could do it. And that, in a way, is its genius. It helps us to relate. It helps us to buy into the ghost story in a way that we might not if the production was more lavishly mounted. I don’t believe in ghosts, but this is not a movie I would want to watch at home by myself past midnight. Suddenly, the natural settling noises of the house would sound anything but natural.

Is the movie scary? For a horror movie, that is often the bottom line. While it may be a stretch to call any motion picture conventionally “frightening,” Paranormal Activity is suffused with a creepy, disturbing atmosphere that envelops the viewer. The “boo!” moments are effectively constructed to generate the necessary jolt without seeming unnecessarily manipulative. The ending, which was apparently selected over Peli’s original version after being suggested by Steven Spielberg, is appropriate for the story.

In some ways, the marketing campaign for Paranormal Activity threatens to dwarf the movie. Paramount is building interest on the strong word-of-mouth generated by targeted screenings and by the exclusivity factor of slowly rolling it out to select theaters in specific markets. Those who feel “left out” in the early stages of the phased distribution can “demand” the movie on a website. Paramount promises that once 1,000,000 demands are recorded, the movie will go wide. (This is a bit of sham, since plans to distribute prints to multiplexes around the country were finalized weeks ago, but the website provides viewers with the illusion of participation.) The Halloween season is the perfect time of the year for a production such as this. Every October, we’re all looking for a good scare. In an era when mainstream horror is often indistinguishable from self-parody, it takes something basic like this to be diabolically successful.

(Spoiler note for the trailer: If you really want to be surprised by the movie, avoid the trailer. Take my word for it.)