Mon Dieu!

Last night, I went to a preview screening of Bel Ami at the Soho Hotel in London. After waiting two years since the filming for its release, I was quite looking forward to it, though based on the not-so-overwhelming critical response to it my hopes weren't up exceedingly high, and that turned out to be quite a good thing. Also, as readers know, I make no secret of the fact I'm quite the Robert Pattinson fan, but I'm at least trying to be unbiased.

In 1890s Paris, penniless ex-soldier Georges Duroy (Pattinson) has a chance encounter with Charles Forestiere (Philip Glenister), a fellow ex-soldier who sets him up writing articles about his time in Algeria despite him being barely literate. He soon begins a career as a journalist and slowly he begins to climb the social ladder via the seduction of the wives of powerful men (including Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci and Kristen Scott Thomas), and begins his quest for wealth and notoriety, at whatever cost.

I'll start off with my main issue with the film, which is why it wasn't French. It was based on a French book by a French author with French characters and set in Paris, so it didn't really make sense to me why they made it with a British/American cast and crew whilst keeping all the same French elements. The British accents with French pronunciations became quite grating rather quickly which put a dampener on things, and really you just forget the film is meant to be set in Paris.

Saying that, the acting wasn't terrible; most of the cast gave acceptable if not stellar performances. I have to say that I'm disappointed that this wasn't released before Pattinson's previous work, Water for Elephants, which was filmed afterwards, released sooner and showed a much better performance from him. I'm afraid that this makes it seem like his acting talent has gone downhill, whereas in fact if his work is seen in chronological order of filming it is easy to see the improvement in his skills. Still, he was convincing as a ruthless womaniser, and successfully made the character detestable, which I think was the aim at least, and he has proved that he can play a complex character well. Even though this wasn't his best performance, it gives a taste of what he is capable of, even if he did go a bit overboard with the facial expressions at times. I'm looking forward to seeing him in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, his next post-Twilight attempt, to see what he can do under the guidance of a well-respected and established director.

The supporting cast were also mostly good. Uma Thurman gave a credible if dismissable performance as Duroy's love interest and later-wife, a woman who is the brains behind her husband, and her British accent is very believable. It's Christina Ricci who is the surprise talent here, giving her best performance for years (as long as you ignore the shrill giggling). Her character Clotilde's relationship with Duroy is one of the best things in the whole film, and she becomes one of the most interesting characters as ultimately she is the only person Duroy actually cares about. Their scenes together are fun and the chemistry is great, and Ricci plays the part stunningly well.

But there were also problems with the cast. Kristen Scott Thomas, usually a reliable actress, was convincing only for the first half in which she didn't really feature heavily, but as soon as Duroy captures the attention of her vulnerable aging socialite Virginie, she turns into a complete mess, and it's not entirely clear if her clingy and pathetic behaviour is supposed to be that ridiculous or whether it just comes across that way. The uncertainty annoyed me more than if it was a straight-up bad performance, but it actually became hysterical, if not for the right reasons. Philip Glenister, though, I can safely say was terrible. I've not seen huge amounts of his other work, but from what I have seen he's given no indication that he has any talent whatsoever, and this performance just cements that opinion. His character was also horrid, and I actually forgave Duroy for his despicable behaviour towards him because of this. Natalia Tena (Harry Potter) was also forgettable, and her prostitute character served merely as a catalyst for an argument between Clotilde and Duroy. (Side note, if anyone saw her on the Sky Movies Oscars coverage this year you'll understand why I struggled to contain laughter every time she popped up on screen.) And Holliday Grainger was beyond irritating. She contributed nothing to the film at all except as a plot device, and really the little she did act was not convincing at all.

I will definitely say that the producers know how to cater for their audience. They clearly knew that this would appeal to the older Twilight fans, and they delivered on the extensive use of Robert Pattinson. He's in every scene and... shall we say, does things we haven't seen from him yet: within the first ten minutes there's a shot of his naked backside and the whole of the first third of the film is basically him whoring around. Still, it's nice to see him diversifying in his acting and taking on a challenge, and it's lovely to hear him acting with his English accent for the first time in a very long time. That being said, this isn't for Twilight fans. He's a villain who Robert Pattinson himself described as "amoral", which really couldn't sum up the character better. He's manipulative, merciless and definitely not a hero in any sense of the word. People who are essentially watching this to see what we didn't see in Breaking Dawn (i.e. any actual sex) will be disappointed if they are expecting any romance, because these are emotionally cold encounters even if they physically smoulder.

The film is good though with its mix of drama and comedy, even if the intentionally funny moments are overshadowed by the unintentional parts, which become more frequent towards the end of the film. However, I think the problems essentially lie in the actual production side. The screenplay was drab, which is a major issue. This film could have been so relevant to today's issues with the newspapers and journalists, as it's supposed to deal with the backhand dealings of politics and the media, but really it just isn't as hard-hitting as it could be and that means the film lacks any real impact; it basically just chooses to focus instead on the romantic relationships between the characters rather than exploring the impact of these interactions. The direction wasn't great either. It seemed that Nick Ormerod and Declan Donnellan didn't have a lot of control over the performances, and because they don't appear to have reigned any of them in when the majority needed to be, they did descend almost into the ridiculous towards the end. If they perhaps had directed the actors better then the subtlety would have made for a better film. I can probably count on one hand how many films have been well-received that have been directed by two people, it doesn't tend to end well. On the other hand, the costumes by Odile Dicks-Mireaux were beautiful, as were the sets, and they gave the film an authenticity that it perhaps lacked in other aspects. Also to be praised is the score, which reflected the film perfectly and was just right, enough to notice it and its contribution to certain scenes, but not enough to distract from the action. It's one I shall definitely be downloading when it finally gets released.

Now I have to say this, and it's hard for me to do. Robert Pattinson was not attractive in this. I'm not sure if it was deliberately to reflect Duroy's poverty and the way he rose to fame, or to show his ugly personality, but despite his looks, he appears dirty and greasy a lot of the time, even when he's rich and well dressed. The poster is the best he looks as his character, and even that has been doctored. However, his character was interesting enough though that I overlook this. Duroy's complete lack of remorse, his greediness and selfishness, and the fact he gets no comeuppance add to the complexity of his character, and it's refreshing to see a character in film that is so dastardly and doesn't get justice. It's nice to see something other than a predictable storyline where the character has an epiphany and is changed, or is ruined and loses everything so that balance is restored. This is one of the only parts that I feel reflects the book and tells the story of a man who will do anything to get power and gets away with it.

Verdict: All in all, it was a disappointment. A stellar cast is let down by poor direction and a less-than-worthy script, even though most of them do the best with what they have. Considering I am a fan of Rob, and because I've waited for two years for this film to be released, it was an anticlimax. My suggestion is to go into this film with low expectations and it turns out ot be much more enjoyable. I'd recommend seeing it becase it is an interesting storyline, even if it's not as challenging as it has the potential to be, but I don't think any of the aspects of this film were as good as they could be, and if they were then it would have been much better overall. Christina Ricci gives her best performance for years and we do get to a glimpse at what Robert Pattinson can do even if he isn't fulfilling his whole potential here and ends up going a bit overboard in his attempt to showcase his talent.
***

Twilight: A Defence

With the release of the latest Twilight film, Breaking Dawn Part 1, came the usual mess of needless abuse, pompous criticism and general hate. People have slated this film franchise so much over the years (it's only been around for just over 3) that I feel like I need to defend it from all the people who hate the series just for the sake of it, without properly thinking about it.

Firstly, as some of you are aware, I am a proud Twilight fan. Note I didn't say "Twihard", because I feel that a lot of stigma comes associated with that word. People hear "Twilight" and assume that everyone is a teenage girl who spends their time hyperventilating, screaming, or crying over the films and everything to do with it. In actual fact, we're not. I read somewhere that over 50% of people who went to see Breaking Dawn in its opening weekend were over 25. It's just because the idiotic teenage girls are the most publically vocal part of the community that they are the only ones anyone ever pays attention to, when actually those hysterical little girls only represent a small portion of the fanbase. I do understand a lot of people's hatred for these people, it irritates me beyond belief too. It's these fans that make me really pity the stars who have to stand there and endure having people scream in their faces... who would want to go through that? I don't envy them in the slightest. But I do disagree with the fact that non-fans seem to group all fans together with these hideous people. We aren't all like that. The day I turn into one of those fans, I want someone to shoot me in the head.


Yes, this represents how most people see Twilight fans. It's untrue (for the most part).

 As much as it has a huge number of people who dislike the books and films, I think people can't ignore the massive cultural impact it's had on the world. As someone who was quite into vampires before the Twilight series even came to my attention, I have seen, as I'm sure everyone else in Western civilisation has, the recent insurgance of fascination with vampires and the supernatural in fiction. The novels of The Southern Vampire Mysteries and The Vampire Diaries may have come out before the Twilight books, but have grown massively in popularity since the success of Twilight, with shows being made out of both of them following this success (True Blood from The Southern Vampire Mysteries in 2008 and The Vampire Diaries from... well, The Vampire Diaries in 2009). There are also now sections in bookshops called "Supernatural Romance" and "Teenage Fantasy" etc. that were not there before, but because there is such a huge demand now for books such as these that it's become necessary to have them.

It cannot be denied, therefore, that these books and films have power. They have caused massive levels of obsession which has lead to it being one of the most popular franchises of recent times, with merchandise everywhere, t-shirts on the chests of fans who wave their posters and scarves and the like. Their premieres are beaten only by Harry Potter in terms of turnout, and new films are often one of the most anticipated of the year. Celebrities are very vocal in their support of the series. Journalists would sell their mothers if it meant a decent interview with one of the stars. They are influential and powerful, and critics aren't going to put a stop to that any time soon, whether they like it or not.

I'd also like to point out the records that these films have broken. It has the second biggest midnight release and opening day ever (Eclipse, broken only by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2, which I think is something it can be very proud of), the third and fourth highest opening weekends in history (New Moon and Eclipse respectively), as well as winning many other awards. These awards may not be the most prestigious or even credible, but they really prove the success of the franchise. They may be mostly voted for by fans, but that just proves the dedication and commitment they have, that I think even outshines Harry Potter fans at times. These fans have ensured that, at the time of writing, the films have made over $2.4 million. Not too shabby, really.

Now we come to the acting, which has suffered more than its fair share of abuse. No, it's not the best, hence they haven't won any major awards, but I really think it's been blown out of proportion. If you go in and watch one of the films with a clear head and without any preconceptions (ok, maybe not the first one), you can see there are some moments that are actually quite good, especially in the latest instalment, Breaking Dawn. I've always said, the leads do the best with what they are given, considering the storylines and script they have to work with. It's unsurprising they get labelled as "wooden" or "limited" when they have very little wiggle room to show what they are actually capable of. Watch some of their other work (Water For Elephants, Panic Room, Adventureland, Bel Ami) and you will see that they are not limited actors at all, they are just limited in terms of what they can do in the constraints of these films at times.

Plus, just think about how much money they have now. Robert Pattinson is the third-richest Brit in the industry, and he was recently named as third in Forbes' "Hollywood's Best Actors for the Buck", meaning for every dollar he makes, his films make a lot back. Kristen Stewart was first on this list; this says a lot. These films propelled them from relative unknowns to superstardom, and they now have international recognition and are well-respected by other people in the industry, including high-profile actors and directors. David Cronenberg cast Rob in one of his new films (Cosmopolis) and has publically praised him many times on his performence, and basically every actor and director Kristen has ever worked with, from Jodie Foster to Garrett Hedlund to Melissa Leo to David Fincher, has had only glowing things to say about her. You cannot deny that they are two of the hardest working people in the industry and the effort they put into making these films and promoting them needs to be admired. It must be absolutely draining for them to do, and they deserve more than the casual panning they get in return.

I fully admit that the books and films are not amazing - far from it, in fact - but when they aren't taken too seriously, they are fun. And I think that's another big problem, that people are just too serious about them. Yes, it can be argued that they take themselves too seriously sometimes, but we all now know the sort of thing we're going to get when we watch them, and therefore we know what to expect and have a vague idea of how we're going to react generally. They are always going to be attacked by prissy pretentious critics who prefer works submitted to Cannes or Sundance, but these are big-budget Hollywood movies who aren't out to impress the critics, but rather the fans. Cast and crew have said repeatedly that they make the films for the fans, and to be honest, do we really think they take the criticism to heart? They know the films will be successful in the box office and in the eyes of their fans, and that's what matters to them the most. They wouldn't have continued to make them otherwise.

On a positive note, it needs to be said that no matter what you say about the films, they always have amazing soundtracks and that cannot be denied by anyone. Hundreds of very well respected artists submit songs to be considered for inclusion on them, including Florence and the Machine (best song on any of the soundtracks I think), Beck, Paramore (the less said about that the better really, in my opinion, but I hate them for different reasons), Bon Iver, Bruno Mars, Death Cab for Cutie, The Killers, UNKLE, and of course, Muse, to name a few. The soundtracks have all been in the top 5 on the Billboard 100, and have basically provided a platform for artists both well-known and rising to showcase their work. Bon Iver were on the first soundtrack before they were really big, and have provided what is probably the ultimate song of the series. So really, the films not only help to propel actors into the public eye, but also musicians, which should not be scoffed at, to be honest. It's ended up being a prestigious thing to end up on a Twilight soundtrack.

I don't understand really why people have singled out these films to consistently debunk and criticise. Ok professional critics, I get that it's your job to give your opinion on the film, but then just leave it there. There is no need to constantly go on and on about how bad you think it is, and give it worse reviews than you ordinarily would have because you have previous misconceptions and views on it. Other films don't get this type of abuse. There have been much worse films released this year that haven't had this much attention drawn to their flaws (*coughGreenLanterncough*), yet people repeat themselves over again when it comes to this series. Why? You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but stop banging people over the head with them. It's at the stage where everyone now has their opinions on the films and nothing is going to change it, so stop harping on.

What I'm trying to get at, really, is that you don't have to like the series. Just accept that it's popular and there is a big fanbase out there and leave it be. There is no need to constantly debase and ridicule it, it just ends up irritating people (and also riling up the crazies even more, so don't encourage them!). It's just a waste of your own time and energy. We all know it's flawed, but it has such a massive following that clearly a lot of people don't care. So you shouldn't either.