Woods and Foxes (sort of) are all in today’s post. It’s a bit like Centre Parcs really, except with less swimming pools and more wrestling.
Once upon a time, there was a musical made called Into The Woods. There is now a film adaptation of said musical. We’ll kick off with that.
Into The Woods does involve going into the woods it must be said, but it would be a criminal disservice to say that is simply all it is about; it follows the various scenarios of some famous fairytale characters, including Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Jack of “The Beanstalk” fame (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford); however, it’s mainly framed by the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) trying to conceive a child but are thwarted by a witch’s (Meryl Streep) curse. To lift the curse, the Baker and his wife must collect four tremendously specific items (a cow as white as milk, hair as yellow as corn, a cape as red as blood and a slipper pure as gold) in 3 midnights time. They venture out to do so in the direction of, you guessed it, the woods.
I must admit that I knew literally nothing about this before I saw it. I knew that it was a musical, and that it seemed to be vaguely based on fairytales, but that was about it. Quick note that those that weren’t in the know like me – this ain’t your ordinary fairytale. The first 2/3rds of the film seem to be a quirky visitation through various fairytales, allowing us to crossover all of them through the Baker’s and Baker’s wife’s quest; we see them through to their happy endings at this stage. When we get to that stage, it feels like a natural progression to the end – but then it all changes. Through little things that have happened over the course of the narrative, all hell breaks loose after the natural ending, leading to a bizarre quasi-epilogue tacked onto the end. From my understanding, it’s roughly an Act 1/Act 2 split in the musical between the relatively normal and then weird, but here it’s completely uneven and so doesn’t quite sit as well.
But don’t get me wrong though, I quite liked the weirdness of it. It made it distinct and different; up until it’s fake climax, I regarded the film a fun but unmemorable jamboree through the fairytalehood. But it’s there where Into The Woods comes into its own, with fairytale chaos that involves a mismatch of the characters we’ve just been following. It is, however, even in this little strange epilogue, like a bag of revels (ie a mixed bag) – some things work and some things really don’t. I can’t go into specifics without going into a spoiler safari, but some parts in the final act feel rushed or there for the sake of it; even if it is in the musical, these components don’t feel natural, even if it is in the “weird chapter”.
The performances are mostly good, with a couple of standouts – one of course being the amazing Meryl Streep as the witch, bringing zaniness to the hag act and getting her mouth round some fairly complex bits (never thought I’d write that, especially in relation to Meryl Streep). Anna Kendrick too and Emily Blunt both bring gusto to their relatively one note characters. James Corden gets the job done but doesn’t seem to excel in the leading man role here. Johnny Depp is essentially just Johnny Depp in his 5 minute cameo as the Wolf, in which he sings an unbelievably paedophilic song about Red Riding Hood that makes everybody feel uncomfortable. Aside from the “into the woods, into the woods” song there aren’t really any truly memorable songs or earworms that make you think “FORGET GREETING MY FAMILY, I MUST DOWNLOAD THAT SOUNDTRACK AS SOON AS I GET IN!”.
All in all, Into The Woods is a strange case. I admire its dark and quirky approach to the fairytale but it comes a little too late in the story, and aside from Meryl Streep it lacks any truly memorable characters or songs. Good fun if you like a know your music/fairytales, but that’s about it.
Right, let’s catch some foxes with Foxcatcher.
This is not a light-hearted adventure about catching foxes or indeed Jamie Foxx, but instead it’s a true story that goes like this; Olympic gold-medal winning wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing all over your Tatum) is in a bit of a rut, with his life being relatively directionless post-win. That is until he gets a phonecall from the ever-so-strange John du Pont (Steve Carell), an heir to a chemical fortune who has a keen interest in wrestling and wants to make his compound, named Foxcatcher Farm (THAT’S THE NAME OF THE MOVIE!), the official training ground for the Olympic team. He’s keen on getting Mark and his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) on site and onboard. As du Pont and Mark grow closer in their relationship, cracks in his personality start to show, all leading to a horrible crescendo…
First thing to say about Foxcatcher is that the three main central performances are outstanding. It’s no wonder all involved are (or at least ruddy well should be) nominated for awards. The most obviously transformational is Steve Carell, who we’re all used to seeing being a jolly funny chap, turning into this dark and pompous figure of wealth – a quiet, grotesque megalomaniac. It’s genuinely hard to believe that this is Brick Tamland or Michael Scott we are seeing here – and that’s not because of prosthetics. Channing Tatum’s performance too is stunning – embracing the adonis figure that he has (which is unbelievably similar to my own) and using his physicality in contrast with Mark’s incredibly low self esteem and fragility. Ruffalo too brings a soft-spoken approach to the older brother/coach role and is amazing in his tenderness that you really feel like he has earned with Mark.
The landscape and colour scheme of the movie immediately imprints in your mind that something terrible is going to happen, and it’s a sense of foreboding that is there throughout the whole movie; you always feel as though it’s leading to an awful climax. It’s a film that has sport as a framing device but it’s certainly not about sport; it’s about power, masculinity, megalomania and isolation. Because the film is populated with lots of masculine men, not a lot is verbally said about how people are feeling; it’s more with pats, touches and wrestles with one another where everything is brought into the open. This of course means that everything is open to all sorts of interpretation; once you see the scene for yourself about the “wrestle in the gallery”, you can decide for yourself what is going on. But it’s all part of the rich character study that makes this film so strong.
Admittedly, it can be slow and feel like it drags in some scenes – especially when they are in complete silence. There is a score but it’s so intermittent it may as well not be there; the silence adds impact to the various sounds that are made at times (such as hitting cheekbones and squeaking shoes), but on other occasions it makes a scene more mundane and less tense. The story does not give you much of a spelt out reason as to why the event in question happens, but rather leaves it open to your own interpretation; something that will inspire some but infuriate others.
It’s an at times slow film that has its problems but it is a fascinating character study into masculinity and power and maybe a little bit of wrestling, elevated by some transformational performances from its central stars.
Richards Reckons 