'The Angels' Share', whiskey redemption

The Angels' Share

Kind of a shocker, here comes what can easily qualifies as the most comedic and upbeat movie in Ken Loach's filmography (teaming up again with screenwriter Paul Laverty). 'The Angels' Share' is a warmth, mostly gentle (with a couple of punches here and there punctuating the harsh social background of the fun) and good-natured comedy, even careless at times for such a serious duo. And despite it certainly won't rank among the most memorable works of the maestro's career, it's hard not to love this joyful tale of redemption... and whiskey.

Set in Scotland (careful with the accents) Loach points the viewer out to a bunch of outcasts (drunks, ruffians, pickpocketers) and their summary of minor (or not so) felonies, recited by a judge. Then he focuses the camera in the story of Robbie (stunning performance by previously unknown actor Paul Brannigan) who is in the verge of confronting a most-demanding crossroad in his life. He has a prison record, as well as a violent and drug-addiction past. He has been sentenced to community services, in what it looks like the very last chance to reintegrate into society. And he is more than willing to do so, because he is also about to become a father. He is determined to reform himself and behave responsible, but like a local, 'scoundrel' version of those sub-genre mafia movies in which the hero can really put away his past, it seems all odds are against Robbie.

Loach plays tricks with us at first. Yeah, there are slices of comedy in the secondary characters, a bunch of hilarious roughnecks, with whom Robbie is paying his dues with society. But the scenes are packed with our leading character's constant attempt to avoid the violence (or death) that threatens him (from the Clancy's, the family he got into the serious "incident" that ended at court, seeking for vengeance, as well as the family of his girlfriend, wanting him to leave the town and disappear from her life), while the possibilities of finding a job seems the tiniest. There's even a brutal scene when Robbie has to face the family and the victim of his most despicable moment as a human being. Everything looks like a Loach-by-the-numbers movie with some oddballs in the form of risible, entirely diverting characters. But this time, the veteran director wants to believe in redemption and second chances as well as the kindness of mankind. Even if its in an almost surreal way... 

Because it's true, you really have to make several concessions, some more than remarkable, with the plot development to keep it going once 'The Angels' Share' becomes a very unusual and amusing kind-of-thriller, with Robbie discovering he has a gift (better said, a nose) for whiskey and a bizarre opportunity to make some money, maybe even a path to start from zero a new, peaceful life, appears. But by then, the charm of characters, the genuine quality of their performances, the awkward friendship among the leading quartet has won you completely. The adventure involving an almost-mythical malt, a glimpse of jet-set (an obvious punch to highest classes willing to waste their money in stupid competitions for status) and ambitious, pretty obscure collector is blatantly flat from a realistic standpoint of view. But we, as viewers, couldn't care less. Robbie, Albert, Rhino and Mo HAVE to make it.  

Because even in its lightweight hour, Ken Loach's movies have something not many directors have. It's the heart, man. Shown in the arresting character of Harry (John Henshaw), the misfits minder, relentless to help and care for them. Willing to give them a chance. Even it that chance has the form (what a simple, perfect, moving final scene) of a bottle of whisky. It's the heart. For the real, common people. Thank you, again, Ken.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Biutiful", selling the drama?

Biutiful

It's not the first time I'm involved in this sort of debate. And it is also not the first time a González Iñárritu's film provokes this debate. Is this another step, after the brutal stories of "Amores Perros", "21 Grams" and "Babel", towards achieving the most ambitious, global and up-to-date drama? Or just another example of a filmmaker with a serious (gigantic, I would say) problem of megalomania?

Some critics have devastated "Biutiful" as a despicable example of "the other's pain exploitation" from a bourgeois perspective. For them, Inárritu is a director using miseries like a tourist would do, self satisfying his ego while pretending he's offering a slice of raw reality. Others, on the contrary, qualify the film as an "elegiac, melancholic poem about love, fatherhood and guilt". I see both points, but I wouldn't go that far. In my opinion, "Biutiful" could have been the best, most interesting and absorbing film from the Mexican director,    but his lack of moderation and list of excesses almost kills the movie. Let me split the review in two parts:

Praises. First and foremost: Javier Bardem. Excellent, heart-rending, very sophisticated performance of Uxbal, the absolute focus of the film, capable of saying so much with so little. Iñárritu is so lucky such a talented an actor accepted the role and became so committed to it. He's the film, giving the director, in my opinion, his first, rich, very well defined and engaging character of his cinema. Second: bye circular, supposedly avant-gardist structures, hello logic and fluidity of the story. Third: the core, foundation of "Biutiful" is a very solid story of a father, struggling with death and a dark present that leaves little hope for the future he aspires to give to their beloved ones. One can only wonder what would have happened if Iñárritu had restrained him only to this.  

Grievances. The amount of excesses is overwhelming. First: like Michael Haneke's "Code Unknown" it commits the fault of wanting us to assimilate and almost infinite list of miseries and human degradation (our degradation, of course), believing they are denouncing them just by allowing some time on screen. That's so wrong. The reality of migration and marginality in cities like Barcelona is way more complex and intricate that the one we see on the film. I'm not saying the story is unbelievable. I'm just pointing out that marginality here is the context in which Uxbal lives (and "works"), but Iñárritu also takes the occasion to "preach" about it. That mixture is, at times, indigestible. Second: elevating the amount of misfortunes, personal tragedies surrounding Uxbal doesn't make the film more authentic. On the contrary, saturates the audience and contributes creating that whiff of manipulation some critics see. Third: the paranormal story is absolutely unnecessary. Fourth: as the number of things going on is disproportionate, the length of the film is equally overlong.

Overall, "Biutiful" is a longer-than-life drama, in which the spectator opinion might differ vastly depending on her/his own preferences and personal story. Thanks to a masterly Bardem and an intense central story on parenthood, the movie becomes, probably, the most intriguing film of Iñarritu's career so far. But at the same time, it is so damaged by the excesses of his director it almost chokes the audience.

SCORE: 5,5/10

"Fish Tank", no way out

Fish Tank
Sharing the tradition of the hard-hitting realism of Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, Andrea Arnold shows in all its rawness the desolation of the British suburbs, through the life of Mia, a teenager with a straightforward mouth, a raging attitude, but also a girl with an amazing strength and braveness and a real hunger for life.

What we see is real desperation on the film. No support from a terrible familiar situation, no friends, a sense of real danger and isolation, captured by the director with some poignant and brilliant shooting. The future looks doomed for Mia, and her dancing abilities with the apparition of someone who really cares seem her only choice to escape from this world.

Arnold's script is content, all the scenes have a clear purpose and there are plenty that will stuck in your head. So when the twist in the plot appears, it compels the spectator. And when we reach the climax, we are deeply moved by it. One can say that it might be too dramatic for a 15 year old girl, but in what regards to the development of the film, there are no flaws. Also it is necessary to highlight the work of Katie Jarvis (Mia). It's so hard to believe it was her first experience acting, as she delivers a powerful, fierce and emotional character with an astounding conviction, something one can also apply to all the cast.

It is bleak, harsh and merciless. But there's also a lot to be praised in this excellent film.

SCORE: 7,75/10