Charlie Wilson's War, Atonement, The Watermans Centre and Ealing Council's consideration of the dreadful Arcadia development

by Parsley on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 5:23am Post to Twitter

PARSLEY'S COMMLOCK

Film Reviews : Charlie Wilson's War/Atonement
I guess you're wondering why I'm choosing to review these two very different films together. Well, it's because I saw them in the same cinema - the Watermans Centre, Brentford, and it drove home to me how good one of them was, and how crap the other one was. See if you can guess which from what I'm about to say...

Atonement is so far up its own backside it can see its own feet. Lavishly filmed in sumptuous period detail, it's done to very high production standards. It's British, and so the futures of employees in the British film industry are riding on it. If only I hadn't had to listen to the dialogue and be bothered by the tedium of the plot I might have enjoyed it. I gather it's a good book, and the film faithfully creates the details of the book to tedious effect. The film is well targetted at the American demographic where English country scenes and accents trump a lack of a good cinematic story well executed.

The story concerns how one man‘s life gets blighted by his actions being misinterpreted by a young girl. The action is set in affluent pre-second world war England, and subsequently war torn France. It is obvious that a great deal of skill went into the creation of the visuals, including an absolutely panoramic view of British soldiers gathering to escape from France or die. I‘m afraid that in my case this hard work only increased my annoyance at the unreality of the narrative. Scenes were tediously replayed from different peoples perspectives, and the action jumped backward and forward in time more than a time travel sci-fi film. Vanessa Redgrave‘s cameo as the grown up version of the child seemed particularly laboured. The whole thing was good as eye candy but unfortunately unconvincing as a film.

Conversely, Charlie Wilson's War seemed short to me, and every bit of it seemed to be used to good effect. I realised it was not short, but just that recent films I've seen such as Spiderman #3 and the dreaded Atonement were just horribly tediously long. They left me exhausted. Charlie Wilson's War left me interested and engaged.

The story concerns a congressman (Charlie Wilson, played by Tom Hanks), and his efforts to organise the American support of the Afghans against the Soviet Union in the 80's. It‘s fairly scathing about the way American politics works, or mainly doesn‘t work. It suggests that only with a bizarre mixture of heartfelt honest intention and sneaky cleverness, coupled with sheer bloody mindedness does anything ever get done.

The film reminds me of 'Good Night & Good Luck' because each part of it built the story, and no part of it seemed to have been added in to fulfill some Hollywood agenda. In fact it very subtly educated the viewer about its subject and then entertaingly taught them the background to the subsequent World Trade Center bombings. This was barely referenced and certainly not horribly over-laboured and deconstructed as the plot of Atonement was.

It also cleverly replayed the now often forgotten rabid anti-Soviet Union sentiment of the Americans. The phrase `let‘s go kill some Russians‘ is cleverly used as it was in those days, and it was all the more disarming for not receiving any balancing comment. Shots of helicopters high tech shooting of civilians from the soldier‘s view turned Rambo-style films‘ approaches on their head – these were the bad guys.

Julia Robert‘s role as a fund-raising rich campaigner was fine, and compared favourably to the waste of Redgrave in Atonement. Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a particularly enjoyable portrayal of a CIA agent pig-headedly doing a good job.

So in summary, Atonement is not good. It's a triumph of style over substance, and it's about satisfying a list of tick boxes rather than making a good film. Charlie Wilson's War is an interesting, well made, thought provoking piece that delivers its story without self-cosciously looking over its shoulder to see if it's satisfying a Hollywood demand.

Art News : The Arts Council cuts grant to the Watermans Centre Brentford
I watched the above films in is a very nice venue, and it has that quality that is increasingly lacking in London - it is not so stuffed full of people that it is unpleasant to be in. Of course, like all locally funded social and arts centres it is at the mercy of funding, & I gather that the Arts Council have recently threatened to remove half a million quid's worth of that at a stroke. This will threaten the Centre's continued existence and crap on a nice place. If you want to object you can via http://www.watermans.org.uk/about/our_funding/

Council Watch : Ealing Council considers dreadful Arcadia development
Ealing Council are considering being instrumental in a gruesome bid to erect a dreadful and uncharacteristically tall skyscraper (40 storeys - designed by Architect Lord Foster, also responsible for the Gherkin and the new Wembley Stadium) in the middle of a crowded broadway area. This is an obscene development of the highest order with no care for the chaos it will introduce into the area. It's all about the quick big buck and will be a monument to property developer greed. My Mum and I met a group paid for by the devloper distributing leaflets saying 'Say Yes to a brighter Ealing'. It was a horribly cynical piece of PR. The girl who spoke to us said the fact that the local station is falling apart and regularly buckles under the strain of existing numbers of commuters was nothing to do with her. When she saw my Mum's opposition she ungraciously chipped in with 'old people object to anything'. I wish I'd pointed out to her that she will be old one day.

parsley@gardenrecords.com [www.gardenrecords.com]