MOVIE REVIEW: Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things (2016)

I was hoping this documentary would be more than simply a cheap attack on capitalism, and to be fair it was. Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things central spiel essentially comes down to quality over quantity. How culture has moved away from it's core values to become hyper-consumerist in the last 20-30 years due to a number of different factors; capitalism, marketing and technology, to name just a few. It also touches briefly on some of the psychology behind why we have fallen so deeply into this pit of endless material pleasures. All of these things are of great interest to me, and hence I appreciate this documentary for outlining the key issues and drawing our attention to the potential for more fulfilling lifestyles. That being said, it is pretty thinly veiled, only offering quite rudimentary insights into a set of issues that psychologists can spend their whole careers studying and seeking to understand.

This film was fairly well put together from a thematic standpoint. The main thread focusses on the concept of "minimalism", overconsumption and materialism in then modern age. It goes about discussing the lifestyle and it's ramifications through personal stories and anecdotes from a variety of attractive middle class Americans, most of whom have come from wealthy, materialistic backgrounds before finding a level of solace in a much more reductionist way of living. Most of their arguments hold up pretty well, and I find it difficult to criticise their reasoning for choosing such a path. Indeed, who wouldn't be happy to live such a life? The through line of the whole thing is the story of The Minimalists, a pair of men in their early 30's (I think) who abandoned their six figure salary corporate jobs to become full time advocates for this lifestyle, authoring books and touring the country promoting it. Most of the interviews were engaging if a little void of original content. The stuff I enjoyed the most was when it covered the severe environmental and social consequences of a culture that relies so heavily on material wealth. They used the poignant example of the fashion industry, citing things like the built in obsolescence of clothes based on trends. It became clear to me that this is simply not compatible with any form of sustainability and eventually we will not be able to keep it up forever.

The film also comments on the psychology of materialism, interviewing the likes of Sam Harris and other experts on the subject. This was interesting and for the most part, but it quite literally only scratches the surface of something that seems scarily close to the very core of our nature. Nonetheless, I still think it was a necessary part of the film because it provided the context for why we might want to think more about living simpler lives.

One assumption the film makes a little bit too readily is that owning lots of stuff or making a lot of money does not make people happy. Often we hear people saying things like "I looked at the people around me making a lot of money and I could see that they weren't happy". Well how do you know they aren't happy? Did you ask them? This brings me to my biggest criticism of this film, that it ascribes a belief system about happiness onto everybody, rarely taking into account the individuality of preference that we know exists in all of society. I am sure there are millionaires out there living in mansions who are very happy indeed, just as I am sure there are those who are not. The more interesting question is whether materialism is a more generalised problem for ordinary people, and if so why and who does it affect the most? Although the film makes an attempt to answer this, it doesn't break it down in that much depth. To me, it seems that consumerism has a clear link to socioeconomic class, and it can be at it's most insidious when poor people are lured into buying things they don't need and can't afford. This would have been a fascinating angle to look at it from, and I personally think the filmmakers missed a trick by omitting it.

My second main issue is the sincerity of the people involved in the film. It all started to sound a bit self-richeous and even hypocritical when you have people being filmed on their MacBooks or in their nice cars talking about living a "minimalist" lifestyle. In reality, I think this film is much more about conscious and balanced living rather than a radical form of minimalism. My issue is mainly with the framing of these lives as minimalist. Sure they might be more so than your average westerner, but as one man perfectly articulates in the movie, "a real minimalist would be a hermit, a recluse, a monk". He's right, they would be. After all, the lifestyle The Minimalists are promoting on their book tour is not radical, requires no real sacrifice of anything apart from excess possessions and is still inherently westernised, which I guess is why it is so attractive to people. That is not to discredit the value of such a way of life, but to call it minimalist feels more than a little pretentious, especially considering the money they were undoubtedly making in book sales and for the documentary itself.

My main issues with films like this nearly always come down to the lack of grounding and appropriate framing. What should be a concise synopsis on the merits of a quirky alternative lifestyle normally become a bit full of themselves and devolve into an exercise of hyperbole and preaching to the choir. That is my overarching problem with this documentary, the way it portrays these people's lives as better than our own, as something to aspire to, when in actual fact it is not much more than a form of neo-buddhism depicted as something profound. If the aim was to tackle the subject on a deeper level, it would have reached back into the roots of such ideas, in buddhism and other philosophies from around the world. I mean, this is hardly a new idea! As this didn't seem to be the intention, it would have been nice to see more of the practical aspect of converting to this way of living, such as the small spaces converted into quirky homes. This combined with the insights into the epidemic of overconsumption would have made for a modest manageable film, but I feel like too often it strayed into territory that it had no business being in, detracting from the other topics.

At the end of the day, you do not need to buy a book to become a "minimalist", nor is it necessarily the best way to live. This film provides a fairly strong case for such a lifestyle being something worth investigating, but I believe in people making up their own minds on what they want in life. For some it will be a simplification of their material lives, but for others it will involve embracing even greater complexity. It is far from a black and white question, it is completely subjective. I applaud the filmmakers for bringing up several very important issues that are only going to grow in relevance and impact as the 21st century rolls on, and I do agree in general that we have become lost in a vast storm of distractions, instant pleasures and pointless material goods that take away more than they give us. But we are also blessed with the power to choose our own destinies, and how we decide to express that is unique to each of us. Whether a minimalist of a maximalist, make the most of your life!

Overall: 55/100

Thought of the Day: Be Decisive

One thing I am quickly learning as I approach my mid-twenties is that decisiveness is the key to life. This word or similar ones are banded around nowadays without much weight being placed behind their usage. We are tepidly encouraged at school to pursue our passions and follow our interests, but it always seemed, at least in my case, to come with a heavy dose of experiential detachment. By this I mean that the art of decision making and perseverance were not taught in a very active sense, but more from a passive, disconnected and intellectual point of view. I don't necessarily have anything against this - here I am writing this after all. But one thing I consistently felt as I drifted through school was that I wasn't being inspired. I wasn't being taught how to think for myself or how to practically go after what I wanted in life. I suspect there are many others with a similar memory of their school days. As I moved through school, college and even university, I found myself achieving mostly good grades, yet not once did I reach a point in which I felt I had all the tools to make my aspirations a reality, and to be honest, I still don't.

I am not here to make any kind of argument against the school system or anything like that. Who am I to do so? I have my naive opinions on it but I will save that for another post. I am simply here to say that I believe the best way to approach life is with complete openness, vulnerability and most importantly, high expectations of oneself. I am a strong believer that making the wrong decision is always better than making no decision. I have learned this through living my first 23 years on this planet completely indecisively. I was a drifter at school, I was a drifter at university and I have been a drifter ever since. Only in the last few weeks have I realised that this simply won't do anymore. The attitude I have started to adopt is one of 'do it anyway', 'do it even if it hurts', 'do it even if it has no reward'. I believe that this is the key to building a strong character and reaching your goals, but I also have no delusions about how hard this can be to maintain. Everywhere I look there is another distraction, another comfort, another piece of mindless pleasure. All of these are meant to hold us down, to shield us from the true potential of our own little lives. It extends beyond our personal lives and into the workplace too. I know from experience just how hard it is to give up job security, to say enough is enough to an abusive boss or a miserable job and step out into the world alone, with no immediate place of refuge or salvation. Of course I am not advocating that everyone leave their jobs tomorrow, but what I am saying is that it is absolutely necessary to fail in order to succeed. No one has ever realised their dreams without risking everything and falling on their face a few times, or a lot of times. It is simply part of life, and a beautiful part at that.

I want to keep this quite brief, but I felt compelled to put this into writing. I will summarise by pledging that I intend to live my life large and unrelenting from this point forwards. For too long I have seen myself and many of those I love fall further and further into a docile and vacuous way of life, deeply unsatisfied but unable to crawl out of the deep hole created by those who don't want to see us succeed. I am here to say that enough is enough. I urge anyone reading this to take a stand for what you believe in. The biggest obstacle I have come across when making big decisions is overthinking them. If you know something is the right thing to do but are putting it off, don't think about it, just do it, then reflect on it afterwards. As a serial over thinker, this is helping me massively. Whatever it is you're putting off, do it today, or at the soonest moment possible. You will soon become a beacon of hope for others around you, and this is the best gift you can possibly give to anyone. I know it's cliché, but it cannot be expressed enough. It is hard to live deliberately without making positive life decisions on a daily basis, and for me this involves removing many of the negative and seductive influences in my life. To quote one of my favourite artists, Kanye West, "I've got way too many blues for any more bad news." It is high time that we cut all the negative shit out of our lives so that we can start creating our own stories, so that we can start being the future instead of just helplessly watching it grow more and more grim. So that's it really. I am not encouraging people to abandon everything that gives you happiness, or even things that provide temporary pleasure. I am simply saying that we owe it ourselves and our society to be the best we can be, and this is done most effectively through positive decision making. If you can get up every day with the mindset of optimism and moving towards your dreams, you are doing something right, even if you don't achieve it. Do more, love more, be more! Have a great day.

"Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right."
  J.K Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

MOVIE REVIEW: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

I still vividly remember seeing every single one of the Harry Potter films in the cinema for the first time. It always felt like one of the biggest moments of the year, and they never let me down. David Yates directed my favourite one of the lot, The Half Blood Prince, as well as both parts of the Deathly Hallows which are right up there too. I will always consider myself lucky to have grown up in the age of Potter, both the books and the films. Perhaps because I was roughly the same age as Harry as each film would come out, but mostly because the Potter universe was somewhere I actually wanted to spend a lot of time. The complexity and realness of the characters really carried the story, and you believed in the magical elements precisely because these characters were so believable. Fast forward to 2016 and we have a film that takes place in the same world, yet comes up a long way short of the originals in nearly every department.

I really wanted to like this movie. The idea sounded really cool to me. As I mentioned Yates directed some of my favourites in the franchise, and with J.K Rowling on board as the screenwriter I felt like we were in safe hands. There is not one fundamental problem with Fantastic Beasts - in fact there are lots of positive things about it. The CGI and character design were outstanding for the most part, the 1920's New York setting was gritty, if slightly bland, and a few of the performances really shone through. Unfortunately the problems are also many-fold. The most glaring of all is the script. As much as I admire Rowling, the screenplay for this film kind of has me wishing she'd stick to writing novels. It's not that it's terrible, it's just that it's mediocre, and in the Potter universe that just isn't going to cut it. Many scenes just felt inconsequential on both a thematic and narrative level, with dialogue that comes off as either awkward, sentimental or dull. There were of course several exceptions - the scene in the bar being my favourite for providing both comedy and tension in equal measure. The script never really drew me in like it always did in the Potter films, especially when it heads in a darker direction that was such a heavy feature of the originals.

The performances were also a mixed bag. Eddie Redmayne does his best as Newt Scamander, but personally I did not like his performance. Like in The Theory of Everything, I couldn't help but cringe at some of his acting, which often looked forced and unnatural. Again it's not a terrible performance, but when you're trying to live up to Potter it's very hard to make an impression. I didn't care for Katherine Waterston's portrayal of Tina Goldstein either. Not bad but too reliant on facial expressions and clichéd dialogue. The standout if there is one has to go to Dan Fogler as 'no-maj' Jacob Kowalski, a loveable New Yorker wannabe baker who acts as both the audience exposition character and the comic relief. He was genuinely funny and likeable, and gave the film the sense of humour it so desperately needed more of. His interaction with the other characters was great, but most of all with the beasts themselves, who he would always end up at the mercy of.

Speaking of beasts, they were undoubtedly the saving grace of this movie. In fact I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if more focus had been put on the relationship between Scamander and this multitude of intricately designed creatures that he was protecting and caring for. Instead the film seemed undecided on what tone it was aiming for, on the one hand wanting to capture the awe and magic of Newt and his beasts, whilst also trying desperately hard to be as dark as the final few Potter films, to which it falls embarrassingly short. The story of Credence and his upbringing was a cool idea, but I think they saved it for a later movie, where we would have had more time to understand his character. The CGI mess in the final act, with Credence flying around as an Obscurus tearing up the streets of New York, just shouldn't have made the final cut. The subtly and ambiguity of evil was utilised so perfectly in the Potter films because of the level of nuance in the characters and the growing dread that builds through every successive movie. It's a real shame because I thought Ezra Miller could have made Credence a really fascinating character, he just wasn't given enough to work with.

One thing I admired about Fantastic Beasts is how little it relied on fan service. Apart from the passing mention of Albus Dumbledore, there was very little sucking up to Potter's legacy. Having said that, and with the knowledge that they are making 5(!) more of these things, I have to question whether the world will be interesting enough to stretch it out that much. Many will say that this was a set up film for the ones to come, but I am not going to give it a pass for that. The first two Harry Potter's had me desperate to see how they were going to approach the rest of the films, and I just didn't get that with Fantastic Beasts. Nonetheless, it was a bold move to make a film in such a beloved world without doing what so many other franchises have done *cough Star Wars cough* and simply copy the formula of previous successes, so it does get some praise for that.

Overall, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was just not what I wanted it to be. Ultimately it lacked a set of characters that I wanted to invest in and had a script that felt like it was trying to do too much. The result was a badly paced and tonally inconsistent film, with the odd scene here and there that really made me remember why I fell in love with the Potter universe in the first place. If they'd focussed mainly on showcasing the beasts and further developed Newt's character, my review might have been entirely different. Nevertheless I still think this is a fun family movie and it will certainly appeal to some much more than it did to me. My hopes are simply that both Yates and Rowling will take this franchise somewhere more engaging in the future. We will see!

Acting: 45
Narrative: 45
Visuals: 65
Music: 60

Overall: 54/100

MOVIE REVIEW: HyperNormalisation (2016)

Adam Curtis' HyperNormalisation takes us on a grand tour of the last 50 years in human history, but not as we're used to seeing it. In his nightmarish depiction of the world and the events that have shaped it into what we see today, Curtis's thesis is simple - all is not as it seems. This idea is far from new, but I have yet to see many documentaries attempting to be so brutally honest about the grave deceptions we have been sold, often by individuals that we may have looked up to or trusted at some point in time. What results is a film that is both bold with its assertions and accessible to almost any viewer with an open minded approach to current affairs. I enjoyed it immensely, although I did feel that Curtis occasionally drifted away from his main line of reasoning into territory that he was only willing to briefly outline, and whilst interesting, felt insufficiently explored to really add to the overall narrative.

The film starts off by laying its cards firmly on the table. Curtis tells us in no uncertain terms that the society and culture that we are living in is mostly fake, or at least, carefully engineered by those in power to fit their needs. The way Curtis goes on to present these ideas I found to be extremely engaging on both a cinematic and intellectual level. In the interest of not becoming too emotionally invested in the film, I tried to keep questioning the validity of what I was seeing, and for the most part I thought Curtis backed up his claims with clear examples and evidence. The central thread of the narrative stemmed from the idea that the East and the West had very different ideas of how they thought the world should be run. Curtis uses the case study of Henry Kissinger and Hafez al-Assad in the 1970's as a starting point, asserting that Kissinger wanted to fracture the Arab world in the interest of western expansion and the formation of a one world government. Al-Assad directly opposed this, and endorsed radical Islam and suicide bombing as a means to retain control.

Crucial to the documentary is an implication of just how much global attitudes to politics have been changing since the 1970's as a result of both world-changing events and the implementation of new technologies. He chronicles how governments transitioned from wanting to totally control the world in the 60's and 70's to simply wanting to predict and manage it in the 21st century. He clearly lays out why power was handed over to financiers and bankers in the latter half of the 20th century, and how this then snowballed into global revolutions, a reshuffling of power and a growing threat of annihalation. He takes us from Kissinger to Reagan and beyond, constantly referring back to the Middle East and specifically, Colonel Gaddafi, who Curtis argues was used primarily as a political puppet. All of this flies past us at a rapid rate, and at times I found it difficult trying to piece together all of the information that was being thrown at me. As the film progresses, we get insights into all manner of things from artificial intelligence and supercomputers to the depressing reality of growing individualism in Russia during the Cold War. All the while Curtis attempts to show the relevance of such things, and how all of it together contributed to the formation of the system we see today.

Although I found almost all of the content informative, many of the notions presented by Curtis were ones that I had heard and seen before. The rise of the alternative media has exposed much of this stuff to millions, yet strangely the alienation of the general populous seems to be at an all time high. The final part of HyperNormalistation does look briefly at why this might be, and this was the most interesting section of the film for me. The reason Curtis gives for movements like Occupy Wall Street ultimately failing is that they did not have a clear plan on how they wanted the world to be run. They had principals based in equality and social justice, but lacked the necessary organisation and vision to spark a world-changing revolution. He makes a comparable claim about the Arab Spring, which in most cases simply left the countries involved in complete chaos, with no real idea about how to organise a new society. I found it fascinating to hear Curtis argue that these "revolutions" left a vacuum of power that would soon be filled by radical Islamists, who would in turn facilitate the proliferation of ISIS. How he eventually links this back to the main themes of the film was extremely thought-provoking, suggesting that this scepticism about government in both the East and West left people feeling more confused than ever, and thus, more vulnerable to manipulation.

Curtis also touches on the role of the media in all of this, something I am personally fascinated by. Many of us, including myself, have come to paint the mainstream media as the bogeyman, responsible for controlling public opinion in a way that pacifies us. Although this undoubtedly has some truth to it, Curtis points out that even this in itself might be a deception, and that a deeper, more insidious form of manipulation is at play - one based on cognitive dissonance and politically extreme rhetoric. He uses the rise of Donald Trump to demonstrate this, showing that despite constant slander and defammation, he has only gained political traction and popularity. He even states "Trump has defeated journalism", and he is right. This was when the film ceased to be simply a set of well presented ideas and morphed into something that was truly terrifying to comprehend - the notion that even what we think we know might also be an illusion. I was reminded of 1984 and the concept of double-think that Orwell popularised. If Curtis' thesis is true, we might already be living in such a world.

At 166 minutes, HyperNormalisation might appear long, but in fact it still left me wanting more analysis and clarification on certain points. The reality of documentary film making is that you're always going to be working within time constraints, seeking to refine and consolidate almost everything into content that is palatable to a general audience. This is a good thing in many ways, and Curtis certainly does a good job at it here. I did however feel like the film was painting many of its ideas with a very broad brush. Curtis often uses phrases like "no one saw it coming" or "all of us" etc. Obviously this kind of wordage was used for dramatic effect, which is fine, but I couldn't help but feel the film was occasionally glossing over and oversimplifying issues that were clearly far more complex than they were shown to be. Again, I understand that the film spanned a very large period of time and hence could not afford to linger on anything for too long, but it must be mentioned. It would be easy to come away from such an experience feeling like you know it all, which is ironically the exact opposite of what I suspect Curtis wants people to think. In reality, the purpose of HyperNormalisation, if there is to be one, should be to spark inquiry in people who might then go on to do their own reading on these multifaceted subjects.

There were a few key topics that the film tries to incorporate into the main narrative that just come off as half baked. Two of those were the psychedelic movement and cyberspace, which Curtis uses as examples of how people are seeking alternative realities in a broken world. Both have relevance to the central narrative, but I think required a much deeper study in order to establish their true role in relation to everything else. To me they felt more like cinematic devices, giving Curtis artistic licence to veer off visually into more of the glitchy experimental editing that he seems to really relish. I don't think these sections detracted from the film per se, but they did occupy screen time that could have been spent building on other ideas.

I can't review this film without talking the visuals and editing. The great thing about the documentary medium is that the filmmakers are totally free to play around with the story they are trying to tell in creative ways. The best ones retain a defined form and sense of time, whilst also taking the audience on an exciting journey rather than just a factual walk through of important events. Curtis and his crew are clearly very well versed in the documentary medium, and as a result the experience of watching HyperNormalisation was just that, an experience. Visually, it mixes a very wide variety or archival footage, ranging from iconic clips of politicians, war-zones and news reel shots, to movie scenes and glitchy home video. Edited together in often random sequences, the overall effect was extremely disorientating, matching the tone of the narrative that Curtis attempts to follow. The editing did sometimes feel unnecessarily jumpy though, and I think having to sit through much more of it would have started to grate on me. For the most part he manages to keep a handle on a rough timeline of events, but does occasionally jump back and forth to fill in the gaps. I have no problem with this, in fact I think it is almost necessary with this kind of film because it is trying to follow so many threads at once. The use of upbeat music over harrowing footage of war and the like was yet another example of the surreal layering of the film - a technique I have seen many times before, but rarely used so effectively.

I have to give Adam Curtis huge props for making this film. It takes guts and a lot of skill to tackle so much at once and make it sound cohesive and understandable. Much of it was down to his narration, which most people in the UK will be familiar with through his other BBC documentaries. I don't think it covers much in the way of new ground, but what it does do is present a coherent thread of ideas about the world, with a sense of detachment that you don't often get with such topics. Fundamentally, if we are to talk about such emotive and divisive issues, we must do try to do so without any bias or ignorance. HyperNormalisation shows that this is very possible. I would very much like to see more of this man's work, but for now I implore everybody to go and watch this. You won't regret it.

Overall: 82/100

MOVIE REVIEW: The Double (2013)

If a film can immerse you deeply in somebody else's life, it is doing something right. In the case of The Double, I felt like I was literally breathing the same air as these characters, looking out into the unforgiving blackness of the world and feeling the same sense of confusion, anguish and disillusionment. This film tells the story of how people don't have to die to become ghosts, and that we don't have to do anything wrong to be looked upon as such. I personally found it incredibly moving to observe such an innocent character go through this unimaginable torment with no real way out of the abyss.

I have not read the original Dostoyevsky novel that this was adapted from, but everything about The Double reminded me of Franz Kafka's The Trial, as well as many ideas explored by Orwell and other 19th and 20th century writers. The film is bleak from the first frame, and indeed we do not get a single ray of sunlight for the entire thing. The opening scene felt like a nightmare, giving us a taste of the deeply troubling world that we are about to inhabit. Simon James is someone most of us can relate to in one way or another - he is essentially an introverted overthinker in a world that is only really interested in the superfluous. By contrast, his doppelgänger - James Simon, plays the charismatic charmer, somebody who everybody likes mainly because he knows how to manipulate them. In the middle of the two is Hannah, a character I expected would simply be the love interest, but was happy to see ends up being much more than that.

The main theme that I picked up on in The Double was conformity. As James begins to work in the same government office as Simon, we see that despite how different he is, he is still trying to integrate into the same system and impress the same people. Simon quickly notices that James is doing a much better job at both of these things simply by acting in a much more carefree way. One of the most interesting passages in the film for me was watching James trying to teach Simon how to to impress Hannah, who like everyone else falls for James and brushes Simon to one side. To me this very cleverly highlighted how, when we are living under such a system, we tend to undervalue traits like honesty and kindness and overvalue manipulative traits that can be masked by confidence. We see that Simon wants to be like James and Hannah wants to be with James, even though we know that Simon is the one who genuinely cares about her. The use of two characters who look identical was very effective in framing these social biases because it takes physical appearance out of the equation, pitting these two opposites against each other and leaving the audience, as well as the characters in the film, to make their own minds up about what is going on.

The story becomes incredibly sad when James' true intentions become more clear. He uses his social leverage to blackmail Simon at work and starts a relationship with Hannah, who he cheats on with another girl in the room directly above hers. Socially ostracised, Simon has no power to help Hannah, and what he does do just ends up hurting her more. With every scene in The Double, director Ricard Ayoade manages to make Simon's life seem increasingly worthless and invisible, to the point in which he is told that he no longer exists. At times I found myself wondering what point the film was trying to make - was it building to the inevitable breaking point in which Simon must stand up to this Kafkian dystopia that he is living in, or moving towards a helpless end in which he simply surrenders to it? The third act leaves this question open-ended, yet it is clear that Simon has learned one thing - to be decisive. In no way is it a happy ending, yet for the first time a little bit of truth prevails, leaving me quite moved by the whole thing.

I never thought I would like a Jesse Eisenberg performance this much, let alone like him as two characters in the same film. I think much of it is thanks to the script and direction he was given, which allowed him to play the two roles with a sense of clarity but also nuance. It reminded me very much of Sam Rockwell playing both himself and his clone in Moon, a film I also love for similar reasons. The rest of the performances in The Double were also good, but rightfully the majority of the emphasis is put on Eisenberg and his dialogue. I feel like many of the criticisms of this film may well be lodged at the cinematography, which I understand might come across as over the top to some audiences. Personally I loved it. The decision to shoot everything in low light sums up the tone of everything else in the film, and it accurately depicted the cold worlds that I had imagined in my mind whilst reading 1984 and The Trial a few years ago. The score certainly added to the suspense and was easily one of my favourite things about the movie, but if anything I would have liked to have heard slightly more of it, especially in the first two acts. Overall, the film was very solid on a technical level, with a clear visual style that made the movie play out in an almost dream like reality.

The Double has me wanting to see more of Ayoade's films. It moved me on a personal level, but perhaps more importantly has made me think about how I look at people, even those close to me. We do not live in the world that The Double depicts just yet, however I think there are things in it that most of us will recognise to a much lesser degree. Our need to conform to social ideals that we do not truly understand, and our tendency to judge those who do not fit this mould. This film shows the darkest side of our nature, and acts as a stark reminder that we must try to see things as they truly are instead of simply how they appear.

Acting: 85
Narrative: 90
Visuals: 90
Music: 80

Overall: 85/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Juno (2007)

Juno is a film that charms and delights from start to finish, with a mesmeric lead performance by Ellen Page, a rock solid supporting cast and a story that has the ability to make you both laugh and make you cry in equal measure. I didn't know quite what I was going to think about this, I normally have a hard time putting up with your typical indie rom-com, but I'd heard great things about this one and decided it was about time I gave it a chance.

We are introduced to the character of Juno as a naive, carefree teen, smarter than most her age, quick witted, yet obviously still quite immature. Her predicament is a familiar one to us 21st century humans - she has accidentally fallen pregnant after a one off sexual encounter with her dorky best friend Paulie Bleaker. I was worried that the story would progress into overtly political territory, or simply play on the stereotype of teenage pregnancy and try and find some cheap laughs in it. Thankfully, director Jason Reitman managed to sidestep these pitfalls and make a film that is both comically and emotionally engaging, with a lead character who grows up substantially in the modest 96 minutes that the movie exists within.

What impressed me most about Juno was the growth that we see young this young girl undertake. After deciding not to have an abortion, she haphazardly defaults to putting the baby up for adoption. She finds the perfect couple, Vanessa and Mark, and the main bulk of the movie is spent looking at how all of them handle the weight of responsibility that has been suddenly put on their shoulders. In the first half of the film, Juno seems rather emotionally inept to the whole situation. She is only 16 after all. We see her treating the whole thing as if it means nothing, whilst all the adults around her know and understand that this won't be as easy as it seems. The first act is where we get the majority of the comedy. Juno's father Mac, played by J.K Simmons reacts hilariously to the news, "I'm going to punch that Bleaker kid in the wiener when I see him". Juno struggles to come to terms with what it really means. She understands conceptually the true meaning of adoption, but hasn't yet realised how hard the whole thing will eventually prove on an emotional and logistical level.

The second act is where things get more interesting. Juno becomes well acquainted with both Vanessa and Mark, learning that maybe there is more than meets the eye when it comes to their relationship. Vanessa is depicted as someone who is on an emotional knife edge the entire movie, paranoid about losing the chance to adopt the baby, which eventually drives her to become very reactive. Mark is Vanessa's opposite, closer to Juno in his chilled out attitude to the adoption. I found this to be an interesting dynamic to observe, especially watching the scenes where Juno appears to inadvertently drive a wedge between them just by turing up at their house unannounced. This showed me just how fragile these kind of procedures can be to go through, and how both extremes - being too laid back or being too sensitive can lead to dramatic breakdowns in communication, or even entire relationships.

As we get into the final act and things start to become even more complicated, Juno is suddenly struck with the emotional weight of what is happening to her. What she thought was going to be very simple turns out to be the hardest thing she's ever had to go through. I think the movie really earned this emotional release and I genuinely felt for Juno as she contemplates just how much the baby means to her. It is rare that I come across a romantic comedy nowadays that respects its characters enough to give them a proper arc. In this film I think we see 3 clear character arcs in Juno, Vanessa and Mark, who all learn something about themselves as the film moves on. I also think that a happy ending is rarely given enough credit and indeed, is not always warranted, but in the case of Juno I thought it fit perfectly with the spirit of the movie and its central character.

The film would not have worked nearly as well if it wasn't for a certain aesthetic that I'm sure Reitman and the cinematographers worked very hard to achieve. The colour palette is warm and suburban, and overall it feels like a film that is making a concerted effort to be a bit quirky. This is reinforced by the acoustic soundtrack, with contributions from Kimya Dawson and Antsy Pants, among others. These deliberate hipster tropes are sure to piss some people off, and I understand why. There have certainly been films where I have lodged the same criticisms. In the case of this though, I found myself really enjoying the songs primarily because they felt well placed and spaced out, adding to the scenes instead of just being a cinematic indulgence. There is nothing that special to be said about the cinematography in Juno, but it does include some gems that you can't help but be drawn into. The title sequence was a particular highlight, which was made up of 900 hand cut images of Juno walking to the shop to get her pregnancy test.

Much of the credit for Juno has to be given to the screenwriter Diablo Cody, who wrote it based on many of her high school experiences. The script got the balance just right in terms of drama and comedy, partly I felt because there was substantial crossover between the two. The emotional scenes always had a vague comedy to them and the comic scenes felt like they were grounded in a more meaningful context, which really helped to benefit both.

The acting was of a similar caliber. Ellen Page gives one of the best performances I've seen in a romantic comedy as Juno, handling nearly every scene with equal measures of nuance and intensity. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner play Mark and Vanessa, and both do a good job. Garner especially gives a wonderful performance, making what could have been a really annoying character into someone that we can empathise with by the end. I thought Micheal Cera was going to be in this movie more than he was, but the scenes he is in are really good. He is sidelined for most of the it, despite being the father. I think they could get away with this partly because his character is made out to be very shy and inoffensive. By the end though we get to see him and Juno reunite, which felt appropriate and heartfelt considering what they had to go through. The supporting cast were also very good. I've already mentioned J.K Simmons, who does his thing as Mac, along with stepmother Bren, played by Allison Janney. I can't think of a single performance that felt misplaced or underwhelming, which is really unusual in a movie of this kind.

I have no major criticisms of Juno. It is not a world changing film, but it really did make me think about the complexity of issues like teenage pregnancy and adoption in a deeper way. These are topics that are easy to reduce to numbers and statistics a lot of the time, especially nowadays as rates of both are increasing. This film explores these themes with the respect that they deserve, reminding us that every case is different. Tonally, it is a pretty light-hearted movie, and none of the characters are there just to disgust or shock us, but it is also not afraid to expose the reality of such situations or the impact it has on the people within them. I often find it funny when people say that rom-coms can't be as good as more serious films. I think this is certainly proof that they can be, as long as sufficient emphasis is put on the basics - characters, story arcs and style. Juno achieves in all of these areas and many more. I implore you all to see it, and rejuvenate your love for this polarising genre of film.

Acting: 90
Narrative: 90
Visuals: 85
Music: 80

Overall: 86/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Amanda Knox (2016)

In my mind, a good documentary should do a few simple things. First, it should seek to tell the story in the most objective way possible and establish a rough timeline to fit actual events. Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, it should attempt to identify what made the story unique and explore these concepts as deeply as possible, giving the watcher a deeper or fresh insight into a real life event, story, or person. Finally, it should be engaging to watch, with good editing, visuals and sound design. In the case of Amanda Knox, the first and last of those criteria are definitely achieved. My only major issue with it was that it didn't quite find the right angle in which to frame its central subject.

The story of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the murder of Meredith Kercher on November 1st 2007 became the case of the century in more ways than one in the months and years after it happened. Shocking revelations, confessions, betrayals and conspiracy swirled furiously around the murder for a full 7 years before Knox and Sollecito were finally exonerated by Italy's supreme court last year. I never really knew what to think about the case, I didn't know enough about it. As the documentary tries to comment on, the whole thing was surrounded by massive media hear say, slander and brutal demonisation of Knox and Sollecito. I was hoping this documentary would shed some truth onto all this white noise, and to some degree I think it managed to. The difficulty with a story like this however is that essentially it is still a mystery. The consensus is that it was probably Rudy Guede, but the jury is still out, especially amongst Italians, many of whom were completely outraged by Knox and Sollecito's acquittal. Therefore, all this film could really do was accurately present the very long timeline of the investigation and expose some of the problems with it.

As far as I could tell, this case had two distinguishable factors that made it unique. The first was some blatently negligent and shoddy detective work by the Perugian police force. Even before the documentary began to talk about this I was starting to feel like something was wrong. Windows were being broken, things were being moved around at the crime scene and quick assumptions were being made like "the body was covered, something a man wouldn't do". It was perplexing to see what appeared to be quite a desperate team of investigators, quick to force confessions out of Knox and Sollecito using interrogation methods that were clearly unethical and even perhaps unlawful. After watching 'Making a Murderer' earlier this year, I couldn't help but be reminded of how a confession was forced out of the young and vulnerable Brendan Dassey, even though all the evidence pointed towards him not being involved. The phenomenon of apparent mind control when people are in this dangerously stressed state is a fascinating one and I wish the film had talked more about the relevance of these false confessions in the context of the overall case. The failings of the authorities were most definitely a theme, but were not explored properly until the last half an hour or so, which I thought was a bit of a shame.

The second major complication of the case was the media spin. It doesn't come as much of a surprise given the world we live in, but even by 21st century standards this story was blown up and twisted into making Amanda out to be the devil incarnate. It was almost the perfect media narrative; a young sex-obsessed American girl falls in love with a handsome Italian loner in one of Italy's most historic cities, a love triangle ensues with the girl's roommate resulting in a vengeful murder. Images beamed around the world of the couple kissing the day after the murder became the resounding symbol of this suspected crime of passion. The film does a reasonable job, albeit quite sporadically, in covering this media feeding frenzy, but doesn't linger on it long enough for us to really get an accurate sense of how it truly affected the public discourse surrounding the investigation.

What we are given is an interview with Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa, who has received significant criticism for his exploitation of Knox throughout the trial. His words are telling, yet divulge no meaningful regret or reflection on the impact of his journalistic scoops. Through Knox's interview I sometimes felt like the film wanted us to side with her, and to see Pisa as the real enemy. Perhaps we should. If this girl is innocent then we are looking at someone who was having to endure being called a slut every day for 7 years, having every minute of her past and present scrutinised and thrown carelessly onto the front page. At one point, Pisa describes having his 'Foxy Knoxy' stories in the paper everyday as being a feeling as good as sex, revealing the sadistic and unashamedly exploitative tendencies of our news media, and the public who seem to just lap it up. The only thing about this part of the film that bothered me was how Pisa was used as the fall guy, when in actuality we all know that he is just a tiny fish in a vast ocean. The problem isn't just with individuals like Pisa, but the relentless corporate system driving what can and can't published.

The visual style and editing was done pretty competently. It mixed old footage from the time of the murder with present day shots and interviews with a multitude of people who were involved. With such a long spanning story to cover and so many people who wanted to talk about it, the filmmakers had a pretty huge pool of material to dig into. Overall they do a pretty good job at intertwining significant quotes from the interviews with the archival footage that is used to tell much of the story. Only a few times did I feel they were dwelling on one thing for too long, for the most part the experience was engaging to watch. I wouldn't say it was super entertaining, but in the case of a film like this it is more important for it to inform us, and it did that pretty well I thought.

Both the sub standard investigation and the world wide hysteria surrounding the murder made the Kercher case one of the most memorable crimes of the century so far. I respect that the documentary looked at both of them, but I think it could have been more effective if these themes had been used to frame the story as something unique. To do this they might have had to make it a bit longer, because I can't think of too many parts I would have taken out. Overall though, this is an intriguing documentary and worth a watch for anyone who wants an informed synopsis of a fascinating case.

Overall: 60/100