Game of Thrones Season 5- 3 Stars

Release Poster

I'm a huge Game of Thrones enthusiast so as this season has ended I thought I would write up a summary of my feelings. In many ways, season 5 has been a deeply flawed season and Game of Thrones really needs to improve in order to keep its audience. That said, there have been some brilliant moments this season, which are what keep me watching. So first I shall address the flaws, then the good points and finally where I think it will/should go. This review will contain spoilers up to the ending of Season 5.

The main flaw with this season and, in my opinion, with seasons 3 and 4 as well, is that it has no drive- it doesn't feel as if it is heading anywhere and is simply tangled plot lines with rather arbitrary climaxes at the end of seasons. This is especially true of Dany's story line during the past seasons (basically every season since s1) where her story seems to be being delayed in order for her arrival in Westeros to be at the right time. That said, I do like the way we have seem her develop from a well intentioned young girl, to an inexperienced tyrant and now, possibly, to a more benevolent and capable ruler. But still, in plot terms, her story seems to be being incessantly and unnecessarily delayed. This lack of drive doesn't engage me as a viewer, as I don't feel the plot is going anywhere. Compare the latest seasons with s1, which I believe is the best Game of Thrones season. Everything was fairly united and driving along to the end of the season- Dany's story line was moving towards the death of Drogo and the birth of her dragons, King's Landing to Ned's death and the wall to the beginning of the expedition to find the White Walkers. Season 5, in contrast, has bumbled along without much direction. King's Landing has simply been leading up to Cersei's literal walk of shame which, although brilliantly done and very moving, does not lead anywhere plot wise compared to Ned's death which sparks the whole of Robb Stark's rebellion and the war of the 5 kings.

 Peter Dinklage as Tyrion, Joel Fry as Hizdahr and
Emilia Clarke as Daenarys

The second biggest flaw in this season has been the way the key moments have been integrated. A lot of the most shocking scenes seem to have been filmed in such a way as to generate the most outrage. For example, the rape of Sansa, although possibly justifiable in terms of plot, seemed very much to me an attempt by Game of Thrones to generate the kind of mass attention on social media that TV shows thrive off. Another example would be the burning Shireen, again another incident that was not in the books. Although both these incidents had been built up to and were executed well, GoT's reliance on these shocking incidents shows that they are failing to find other ways of engaging their audience. Previous seasons had fewer of these shock moments, and when they did occur they were only at keys points (e.g. in season 1 there are practically no shocks or dramatic deaths till episode 9, excepting perhaps Robert Baratheon, although his death was not gruesomely shown on screen). I think this increase in shocking scenes has come about because the shock factor has become a major part of Game of Thrones- it is known for it's brutal and surprising deaths so, naturally, it increases them as the best way to engage the viewer. But this is the wrong way to go about it- what was so original and fresh about GoT was its harsh but realistic brutality, but when it is overused the audience becomes numb and frustrated with it. It no longer maintains engagement and simply ends in alienating viewers as the numbers of brutal deaths increase with less emotional weight.

 Lena Headey as Cersei and Jonathon Pryce as High Sparrow- two of
the best performers this season

However, the season has had its moments. The battle with the White Walkers was fantastically done and in fact the wall's story line has probably been the best part of this season. I've never been a Jon Snow fan- his character has always seemed a bit of repetitious conflict between his duty to the Night's Watch and his emotions (s1 tries to desert to help Robb, s3 to help Ygritte, s4 to help Ygritte...again)- but he's really grown on me this season. He's become a leader trying to do the right thing which is not always possible in Game of Thrones. Dany's story line was also the most interesting its been since probably s1, although still rather uninteresting compared to other events. I'm beginning to feel as if she could make some progress across to Westeros and the tensions between the Sons of the Harpy and Dany's new order were also engaging in their own right. King's Landing has been a bit of a weak spot this season, although Jonathon Pryce's performance as High Sparrow was brilliant and elevated the whole story line. That said, the clash of the faith with the crown was quite interesting and Lena Headey once more put in very good performances as Cersei. Her walk of shame in the final episode was a brilliantly executed set piece made even better by the fact that it made you feel sorry for a character who has done so many despicable things. Stannis' story line was also well done in showing the gradual breaking of a strong and dutiful man. The thing the Game of Thrones series has done badly in previous seasons is their poor treatment of Stannis' character, making him unsympathetic and overly cold. However, this season Stannis was made much more human, partly down to Stephen Dillane's increasingly confident performances as a man who loses his soul for nothing.

Liam Cunningham as Davos and Stephen Dillane as Stannis

That said, I thought his end fate was poorly done- how did he manage to survive the battle to be killed by Brienne? It seemed like more of an attempt to appeal to fans with Brienne's vengeance- personally I would have preferred to have just seen Stannis' body after the battle. Brienne's story line has perhaps been the worst this season with no direction at all and very little to do. On top of this, I am unsure about the Ramsay/Sansa storyline. I very much like Littlefinger and so was naturally disappointed to see him go, but there is more than that to why I don't feel this story line works. I think it's down to the fact that Ramsay is basically just another Joffrey- we've seen it all before and so now this pure evil character interests me less. You could argue that this mirroring is deliberate, and shows something about human nature or whatever but I think you would be giving the GoT writers more credit than is perhaps their due. I also feel that Arya's story line has been quite uninteresting- it's so disengaged from everything else that it feels less relevant and even boring. Dorne has been equally forced with the battle in the sun gardens being comically bad (How did Jaime and Bronn get in without guards noticing? Why was the fight choreography so awful?). The sandsnakes are equally boring and interchangeable, with the only distinguishable one being the girl who shows her tits to Bronn (what a well rounded character she is...). That said, I did enjoy Myrcella and Tristain's relationship- nice to see a little lightness in Game of Thrones once in a while. Also, the scene with her and Jaime at the end was very touching (even if it was Jaime basically justifying incest) making the subsequent tragedy even more heartbreaking.

Season 5 consistently got its fight scenes right with engaging battles which focused around characters and didn't simply descend into a CGI gore fest. This is perhaps one of GoT's greatest successes in that it manages to produce epic, large scale battles, yet keeps the focus strongly on the characters involved giving us the thrills but not losing our engagement after 5 minutes of what-the-bloody-hell-is-going-on-in-this-fight-scene like Transformers. The battle at Hardhome and in Meereen's fighting pits were great examples of this, even if the latter's dragon CGI was a little off.

Kit Harrington as Jon Snow- will he be back?

So what about the future? Well first off I don't believe Jon Snow is dead. Not only has George R.R. Martin said, in response to a question about Jon's murder, 'Oh you think he's dead do you?', but the rather contrived reappearance of Melisandre at the wall after the battle (a witch whose red priest powers have been shown to be able to bring people back from the dead by Thoros of Myr) suggests perhaps Jon might be saved. On top of this, from a purely story perspective, with Sam having left the Wall, if Jon Snow is dead then there is no one left at the Wall for us to care about, which will be a problem as the narrative is building towards a white walker invasion. There are also less convincing theories that Stannis may be alive- his death has not been confirmed by the books and we did not see him die (in GoT you always need a body as proof) but I am less convinced of this theory. In terms of the overall story, we need the narrative to start becoming more unified again. I feel as if GoT only really has a couple more seasons left in it before it runs out of steam, and so it needs to start building towards a conclusion. This means war- specifically between the Lannisters and the Martells (as a result of Myrcella's death). Not only that but we need to see Dany invade from across the narrow sea, Arya come back to Westeros to use her new assassin skills wisely and some kind of white walker invasion. Season 5 felt more like a build up season than anything else- not much has really significantly changed since the start but there is a heightened sense of tension and anticipation for the future that perhaps wasn't there with season 4. The question now is- will this build up be used wisely?

Overall, season 5 has had its flaws but also good moments too. There has been significant progress for characters (e.g. Cersei) even if there has been little change in terms of plot. Hopefully this build up will pay off in next seasons and I hope that they continue to streamline George R.R. Martin's work- although the books perhaps manage individual moments with a little more subtlety than the TV show, the later books especially are too expansive and slow so the TV adaption has done a good job of speeding the narrative up.

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 14/20

N.B. I was going to give the season 8/10 for entertainment but the first half of the season was much less engaging than the second, dragging the score down. I could be accused of simply loving action too much and therefore being disinterested in the politics of it but my love of the first season, where there is very little action in the first half, disproves this- I love the scheming and politicking, just only when it's well done and engaging.












https://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/got-s5-poster.jpg?w=600&h=889
http://s.orzzzz.com/news/7d/93/54bf43e63b3a3.jpg
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150105/game-thrones-3-800.jpg
http://media.melty.com/pmedia-1827-ajust_640/cersei-teamed-up-with-the-high-sparrow-but.jpg
http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/273/023a89d0-d734-0132-4613-0ebc4eccb42f.jpg?w=780&h=439&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=70

Whiplash- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Whiplash is an intense thriller about a young jazz drummer called Andrew (Miles Teller) who is driven over the edge in his quest for greatness by his band conductor Terence Fletcher (J. K. Simmons). I watched this film several months ago but have been thinking about it again recently and so wanted to write a quick review.

There are very few problems with Whiplash but the most obvious and glaring is the role of Andrew's girlfriend who is in the film irregularly and really is not a well defined character. Her presence is slightly distracting for very little pay off. I understand that her inclusion in the film was to demonstrate Andrew's sacrifice of his personal life in his quest for professional greatness, and I suppose we do feel as if Andrew is being a dick when he dumps her (and therefore question his pursuit of greatness), but I still maintain that she needed more screen time if the conflict between their relationship and his drumming was to really have any meaning. I think in fact that this absence of a meaningful relationship strikes at the core of Whiplash's main problem- that there is only the relationship between Andrew and his teacher. We needed another relationship to tantalise us into thinking there could be a way out for Andrew and to give us a sympathetic character we could empathise with. Although the girlfriend could have fulfilled this role, I believe it would have been better to cut her out entirely and instead focus on Andrew's father. In this way we would have the clash of Andrew's two father's- his biological one and his jazz one. It would also provide an alternative- his father would represent the kind of mediocre middle class life as a music teacher that would inevitably await Andrew if he failed but he would have a family. On the other side, Fletcher represents the quest for greatness or utter anonymity and destruction (as evidenced by the suicide of his former student). I am aware that both the father and the girlfriend have several scenes in the film anyway, I would have just preferred to focus on one of them and have them more developed as a character, to contrast with Fletcher.

The final confrontation...

However, I did very much like this film, especially the ambitious and intense ending. Instead of the usual physical confrontation that one might expect in a thriller, the final set piece is one long and incredibly intense jazz drum solo. The filming of the drumming strangely reminded me of the boxing in Raging Bull in the way it was filmed- every muscle of the character aching and pounding away in the pursuit of greatness. It was a fantastically original ending to the film and it avoided any risk of a cliched final confrontation between master and student, whilst still providing the raw physicality demanded by a climatic set piece. On top of this, J.K. Simmons was very good in his role as Fletcher, although I did think he was a little overrated (but perhaps that was because it was impossible to live up to the hype). Miles Teller is also fantastically impressive as Andrew, well portraying the downward decline of his fraying mental and physical state.

J.K. Simmons' intense performance provides much of
the film's tension

But what is the film actually about? Well, quite simply, it's about greatness and the lengths we go to obtain it. Fletcher's teaching, brutal as it is, reflects the sacrifice that greatness requires- if you're not prepared to give heart and soul, and possibly a few limbs as well, then you're never going to hit the heights of the greatest. What the film asks is- is this worth it? I think the final conclusion is no, it does not. The biblical phrase 'what doth it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul' could readily apply to this film. Andrew is Faust trading his soul with Fletcher, the devil, in exchange for greatness. But why? Why does Andrew want to become a great drummer? Well, in part, the film suggests that it is purely to impress Fletcher. The final scene, where Andrew seems to win having foiled Fletcher's plan to embarrass him on stage, is actually Andrew trying to prove himself to Fletcher. Throughout the film we see Andrew trying to impress Fletcher until it comes to the point where it is unsure whether he really wants to become a great drummer, or simply wants Fletcher's acknowledgement as the best. This is Fletcher's secret method- he doesn't teach greatness, it is simply his demands for greatness that drives Andrew on to achieve his potential. By making Andrew envious of other drummers shown his attention, by belittling Andrew at every opportunity and through his constant criticism, Fletcher makes his praise golden, the ultimate prize to be obtained. In this way, Fletcher manipulates Andrew into focusing solely on him and driving him to obtain the levels he, Fletcher, demands from him, Andrew. But this draws into question Fletcher's motives- does he really want to teach greatness or simply love the attention of his pupils? I think Fletcher genuinely does want to teach greatness- he's a bastard in going about it but his final nod of approval to Andrew shows his acceptance and recognition of that greatness. Fletcher becomes an idealist- an embodiment of the requirements for being great.

In conclusion, Whiplash is a very good film but perhaps not a great one. It has intensity and a focus on an important question but I feel that the lack of that key second relationship perhaps damaged the film. Andrew is never given an alternative, never given a proper way out which cheapens the conflict slightly. This criticism is especially limiting as I think both the characters of the girlfriend and the father within the film were intended to provide this alternative, but because they were not developed enough, they could not adequately fulfill this role. I did still very much like it however, and certainly look forward to seeing Damien Chazzelle's following films.

Ratings: Entertainment:8 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 17/20 ****








http://www.impawards.com/2014/whiplash.html
https://filmfork-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/content/whiplash3.jpg
http://lynncinnamon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Whiplash-Scream.jpg

Ocean Waves- 3 Stars

Release Poster

Ocean Waves is in some ways a very good and ambitious film but unfortunately it doesn't quite work perfectly. There are too many characters, the narrative is disjointed and this leads to the film not quite flowing as it should. That said, there are positives- it is one of the first anime films (exploiting the success of Studio Ghibli's Only Yesterday) to explore a serious drama written for adults. On top of this, the film does have it's moments and the lead characters feel like real people not simply romantic stereotypes.

For those of you who don't know, Ocean Waves is a 1993 TV movie produced by Studio Ghibli and was a chance for younger animators to make a film cheaply and quickly (although ironically it ended up going over budget and schedule). It concerns a high school love triangle between friends Taku and Yutaka, and the new arrival at the school, Rikako.

In Tokyo...

However, the romance is not played out as it would be in your normal Hollywood romance flick. None of the romantic leads ever get together and all of the emotion is played under the surface- Taku, for instance, never really admits his feelings for Rikako at all or even gives any clear indication of them to anyone. This is one of the strengths of the film as it does not go for simple melodrama and sentimentality as one might see in something such as Twilight's love triangle, but instead explores the repression of those feelings. Taku and Rikako are the main leads with Yutaka being more of a supporting character and it is the interaction between these main two where the film works best. Both like each other on some level, but several things conspire to keep them from admitting these feelings- foremost is Taku's friendship with Yutaka who is the original admirer of Rikako, but there are other reasons as well such as Taku's nervousness, sense of honour perhaps, and a simple inexperience with how to deal with his own feelings. Similarly, Rikako also never admits her feelings and often in fact pushes Taku away as a mechanism of disguising how she feels. In this way, the romance between the two feels genuine- it is awkward, slow and develops over time. To illustrate this point I ask you to contrast this romance with the aforementioned one in Twilight, specifically between Bella and Jacob in the film New Moon (I was forced to watch it). It is a physical attraction between two people who have little or no reason to actually like each other- there is no development, it is immediately passionate and it simply is not real in the slightest (one could argue that it's a fantasy drama so doesn't need to be real but relationships within those fantasies do need to be real in order to ground the rest of the film). In contrast, Ocean Waves feels completely real- the leads have chemistry, both are characters who act selfishly at times and selflessly at others and the film makes it obvious that there is an attraction without forcing it down our faces. Of course, being a better love story than Twilight is no big achievement, but I could pick many other examples of cliched, undeveloped Hollywood romances that could illustrate the same point.

Rikako and Taku

On the other hand, Ocean Waves does have its flaws, perhaps the biggest of which is its disjointed narrative. Around halfway through the film the two leads go on a trip to Tokyo together- they don't really like each other at this point although it's obvious there is some attraction. We, as an audience, understand that this trip is likely to be the bonding point between them. And it is...kind of. The trip is probably the best section of the film as we see both characters develop and grow- for example, we see Rikako as a strong lead in her decision to go to Tokyo and visit her father, her weakness when her father rejects her, then her selfishness and vanity when she pretends Taku is her boyfriend to impress her ex, and finally her intelligence and insight when she realises her selfishness and the superficiality of her ex. Both leads are well rounded characters not simple cardboard cutouts. However, we don't really see that Rikako quite likes Taku in the way he does her. There needed to be some small indication of her feelings so the audience understands where the relationship is at. This is especially important because the relationship is not developed after the trip- Rikako pushes Taku away from her, perhaps afraid of her feelings- and the two do not really interact again until the very end. The film really needed to give us some expectation that this was it and the romantic leads were finally going to come together which would have meant the dashing of these hopes would have had more of an impact. As it was, I wasn't completely sure that Rikako did like Taku cheapening the following scenes. The whole point of the film is to illustrate the missed opportunities we have because of our inaction or awkwardness but it never really seemed as if anything could realistically happen. This, in turn, disjointed the narrative, as I was still expecting a scene giving an indication of Rikako's feelings for Taku. It could be argued that as we see the story from Taku's perspective, and he is not certain of Rikako's feelings, that that is meant to translate back to the audience. However, there is simply no indication that Rikako feels anything for Taku- all it needed was a look or smile or something but, having rewatched the last scene of the trip again (which was the scene in which I was expecting to see some acknowledgement from Rikako of her feelings for Taku), I am quite certain there are none. We do not need certain proof, just a hint.

The final encounter...

The trip also causes other problems in the film. Firstly, the trip to Tokyo itself seems a little contrived as if the filmmakers couldn't find a way to get Rikako and Taku alone together for an extended period of time. In summary, Taku lends Rikako money for a concert not realising she actually intends to use it to go to Tokyo to visit her father. When he finds out, he doesn't want to let her make the trip all the way to Tokyo on her own, so goes with her on the extra ticket she bought for her friend who gets scared and abandons Rikako. It didn't seem realistic to me that Taku would fly to Tokyo for several days just like that without telling his family or preparing for anything. It's made clear he does it because he feels sorry for Rikako and perhaps feels something for her but I still think him dropping everything to fly half way across the country on a whim does not fit with the realistic, awkwardly romantic style of the film. On top of this, the fact that the trip is pretty much in the centre of the film and lasts about a third of the total running time means that Yutaka, the third lead in the love triangle, is left out of the film for about a third of the time and therefore his development suffers as a result. Personally, I didn't think the love triangle worked at all well as Yutaka was not in enough of the film to be adequately developed as character and it seemed like he was only in it to provide conflict between Rikako and Taku. I understand that Rikako and Taku needed motivation not to jump into a relationship and Yutaka, as the third point in the love triangle, provided that, but I think it was unnecessary- the awkwardness of young, inexperienced couples should have worked as more than enough to keep them apart and would in fact have been more interesting and true to life.

Overall I would say Ocean Waves is a good film, although not at all up there with Ghibli's best. The romance is fairly well done and the characters likable and interesting, but the narrative feels disjointed and the love triangle did not work as intended because Yutaka was not a developed enough character. Strangely, this film is rather similar to the last one I reviewed (In the Mood for Love) as it is again a romance in which the leads do not get together out of a sense of duty and awkwardness (perhaps inadequacy).

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 14/20 ***








http://www.shuqi.org/asiancinema/pics/oceanwaves/oceanwaves07.jpg
http://thepinksmoke.com/images/miyazakiocean1.jpg
http://org.ntnu.no/anime/img/serie/upload/20110923223913_281_43_ghibli-1997-12_The%20Ocean%20Waves.jpg
 steviegamingworld.wordpress.com