TV Review: This is England '86

One of the things that made the film This is England seem so sad was that – at the risk of sounding like someone’s mother – they were such a nice group of kids until that racist one came along. Before I saw it, all I knew was that it was about a boy falling in with a gang of skinheads. So I sort of assumed they’d all be a bad influence on him. Instead, Woody, Lol and the others take Shaun under their collective wing and, despite being older and something of a group of troublemakers, offer him genuine friendship. They are such an appealing, if flawed, set of characters that it’s all the more upsetting when events start to take a darker turn.

With this in mind, I was really happy to hear that director Shane Meadows had made a TV series that reunited the fantastic young cast to further develop the characters. Without (so far) the presence of white supremacist Combo (Stephen Graham) the programme focuses more on the everyday lives of the protagonists three years after the events of the film, and reflects further on the grim realities of a northern town blighted by unemployment and Thatcherism.

In the first episode, Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) had distanced himself from his old friends, feeling guilty about what happened to Milky (Andrew Shim). Last night’s second episode saw him reunited with the gang. It started as with lots of light-hearted action involving drinking and partying, with plenty of laughs, of the kind that make you really warm to the characters. However, just as in the original film, this only made the darker moments hit harder. Lol (Vicky McClure), already struggling with her relationship with Woody (Joe Gilgun), was blindsided by the return of her long-absent father. McClure plays Lol’s emotional turmoil astonishingly well, but it’s the sense of the impact her actions will have on the cast of supporting characters that helps to bring it home to the audience.

Throughout, the camera lingers over a washed out landscape of council flats, bare streets and boarded up houses, backed by a lingering piano soundtrack that contrasts strikingly with the upbeat cotemporary music that accompanies the skinheads’ exploits. It brings home the hopelessness of the characters’ environment – the dearth of opportunities to escape or change. In those bleak shots we see the explanation for everything that happens to the characters.

My 3D dilemma

This is probably not a great confession to make on a film-related blog but I didn’t see Avatar the first time round. Now it’s back, re-released and even longer, and so the dilemma I had the first time round returned to bug me.

The dilemma was this: if you’re going to pay money to see something at the cinema – and pay the extra cost for 3D at that – you want to be at least fairly confident you’re going to enjoy it. If you’re feeling doubtful, you normally have the option of giving it a miss, safe in the knowledge that you can always watch it on DVD later. However, in the case of Avatar, that’s not such a good option. The main selling point of the film was its cutting-edge effects, so if you’re going to watch it, it might as well be on the big screen in all its 3D glory.

Now, there’s two ways at looking at this situation. One: 3D is a great new way to restore the sense of cinema as an experience, to take us back to the good old days when going to the movies felt special, when it was worth doing for its own sake, as opposed to just waiting for the DVD or downloading a dodgy pirate copy. Two: It’s a big con. The hype about 3D is a way of strong-arming you into paying ten or twelve quid to see something that’s really had pretty mediocre reviews in terms of plot, script, etc. The special effects are its one big selling point and, conveniently enough, they’re just not the same if you choose any of the cheaper viewing options.

I’m still torn by this dilemma, but, in the end, having a day off work and some time to kill, I went by myself to an afternoon showing of the re-released version. Having heard some truly terrible things about it from some people, I had set my expectations pretty low, and so I was actually pleasantly surprised – although, let’s be clear, that’s not exactly saying much. It certainly wasn’t painfully bad. It was just pretty standard Hollywood fare, with big battles, a fairly conventional environmental message, and a racially dubious but fairly common ‘noble savage’ trope. The script was pedestrian, but not as clunky as, say, the new Star Wars films.

My main gripe was the length – I have a very low tolerance for overlong films, even if they’re good. It just seems to show a cavalier disregard for the audience’s comfort: ‘Oh, I know other filmmakers have to stick to a reasonable length, but what I have to say is just so important.’ However, on the plus side – if you can call it that – I wasn’t too gripped to pop out for a toilet break when I needed one. There was a handy montage sequence where the hero is learning to become a Na’vi that was ideal for the purpose.

On the visual side, it delivered everything it promised, and I was pretty happy just to sit and stare at it for a while. Although there was a lot of action, it was nice to see special effects being used for something other than explosions – the world of Pandora was beautifully realised. Vast trees, floating mountains, glow-in-the-dark plants, and stunning flying sequences on the backs of dragon-like creatures all worked wonderfully well with the 3D to create a really immersive world. If only someone could match that kind of attention to detail with a truly great script and characters.

So, after finally watching this film, I’m not sure I’m any closer to resolving how I feel about the 3D revolution. I suppose it’s really no different to any other advance in special effects – it’s all very well, but you simply cannot neglect the other elements of good filmmaking. Avatar did a great job of making the most of the novelty of the technology, but, in future, I’ll probably be making my viewing selections based on something other than whether or not it’s in 3D. If a great film comes along that also happens to be available in a great 3D version – well, that will just be a bonus.

DVD Review: Where the Wild Things Are

It seems amazing that anyone could make a whole film out of Maurice Sendak’s children’s picture book, but writer Dave Eggers and director Spike Jonze have managed to do just that. This is fundamentally a film about childhood – but not an idealised vision of childhood that is innocent and joyful, more a time of life when you’re helpless at the mercy of events, and when emotions can threaten to overwhelm you. The real-world opening is achingly sad, completely involving you in the world of a lonely and troubled little boy. Once the action moves into the fantasy world, the Wild Things he finds there are as childlike as the young hero himself – they crave reassurance, they feel rejected when their friends find other friends, they are playful but their games can quickly turn to squabbles and end in tears. And the film manages to show that the squabbles are not petty, to the Wild Things they feel completely serious and all-consuming.

In many ways, this is a very simple film. The slight plot barely matters – it is all about the world it creates. The world of the Wild Things is visually creative, the characters flawed but engaging and a stunningly beautiful soundtrack by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs adds a huge amount to the atmosphere, making this film deeply melancholy and hauntingly affecting.