Klara and the Sun

As you would expect for a film based on a book by Kazuo Ishiguro the subject of the film is multi-layered but I wonder if sometimes the way the story is told gets in the way of the story itself. This film is filled with homages referencing films like Amelie, Ordinary People, Surrogates and at times visually, Blade Runner. With a world transfixed by AI and its potential benefits and drawbacks, I imagine we are going to see more and more films exploring humanoid AI. This film tries to paint a positive picture of AI's potential benefits and for that it is to be commended. It is impossible for me say more without spoiling the plot, so if you don't want to know, stop reading here!

Set in a future where the field of android robotics has advanced, shops sell 'Artificial Friends' - life size human robots that are highly developed, able to learn and in Klara's case sentient. This film is essentially and exploration in ontology - the branch of metaphysics that deals with 'being'. It asks what makes humans human and can that ever be replicated in a non-biological humanoid.

The first hour of its two hour run time I found painfully slow. After that it quickened towards its climax. Watching the film feels like being part of a group therapy session which is exploring why and how a family has become dysfunctional and how grief impacts our lives. At times it is very heavy - the film affected my mood for the rest of the day. There are moments of comedy, usually of a slapstick nature,  which didn't work for me - they jarred with the seriousness of the subject matter.

The film is filled with moments of naievity and cleverness in equal measure. Ishiguro is a master of intertwining different emotions playing out in the lives of his characters. Just because an answer to a situation is plainly in sight for the viewer to see, it doesn't mean the characters have the same view - especially if they are enmeshed in their own emotional turmoil. The repeated use of this device left me frustrated.

Eventually we get the core of the problem that causes this family's dysfunction - grief and the deep sense of loss that accompanies it. Grief is a deeply personal thing and those characters entangled in the web of its impact try to compensate in different ways, which ends up only magnifying the problems. The loss of a child, then a husband, then a career are the losses that mum Chrissie (Amy Adams) suffers. In trying to compensate she commissioned a life like avatar of her first daughter who died as a child. She then subjects her younger daughter Josie (Mia Tharia) to a medical procedure to enhance her intellectual and creative capacities (uplifting) ensuring that she is destined to excel academically and enjoy whatever career path she chooses.

Klara has been bought to be an Artificial Friend for teenage Josie who, as a consequence of being 'uplifted' is actually dying although she is initially unaware of that. Klara has been programmed to learn from her host and to perform whatever is necessary to make the host happy. She is met with hostility by Chrissie and especially Melania the Housekeeper (Rachel House) but Josie remains happy to have Klara around. Klara befriends the AI Scarecrow (Jesse Griffin) and Josie's geeky boyfriend Rick (Aran Murphy) and eventually wins over both Chrissie and Melania. Klara's act of self-sacrifice at the end of the film demonstrates the potential of good AI programming and offers a twist to the narrative arc.

The film was made in New Zealand (Silverlight Studios in Wanaka) and it's good to see local actors as part of the cast (Rachel House and Jesse Griffin). There is an excellent and powerful cameo from Steve Buscemi towards the end which reveals the true horror of what has been going on and opens up all the ontological questions the film explores. In this film there are many victims, some of their own making, but the shining star has to be Klara. This film left me in a fug. I don't need to see it again. It would make a good but painful basis for a group discussion on grief and family dynamics - but I would prefer to use Ordinary People. I don't need to see it again. I'll give 6/10.

 

Odyssey

 

My response to seeing this film was one of bewilderment and overload. Not being schooled in Greek Classics, I wasn't sure what to expect other than Odysseus going on a journey. I saw it at the BFI IMAX in London and the fact that it was shot on 70mm IMAX film delivered an outstanding visual feast - the sound was pretty awesome too. At almost 3 hours long and seeing it on such huge screen, I left the cinema feeling exhausted. I'm not sure if that's a good thing demonstrating that the experience had engaged me, or whether that really is a state I want to experience after watching a film. My sense is the latter.

There is plenty to praise about this film. Christopher Nolan must be congratulated for conceiving, writing, producing and directing it. The production budget was $250m and the film has already globally grossed $1.7b and the critics are pretty universally positive about it. The ensemble cast led by Matt Damon in the titular role delivered a strong performance, but it was strange that the Ancient Greeks all had American accents!

One of the things that I struggled with was the non-linear nature of the narrative. My little brain gets easily confused and it was a challenge to work out who was who, what was a flashback and sometimes, even where we were at that point in the story. With goddesses, nymphs, witches and ordinary people all looking the same, I found it adding to my confusion. Add to this acts of magic and encounters with mythical creatures like Cyclops, giant warriors, Sirens, Scylla and Charybdis the whole cast of the ancient Greek world had a turn. There was a lot of fighting and killing - I found it an overly violent film.

Having said that, the overriding desire to be faithful to Zeus' Law and offer hospitality to everyone and a sense of justice and the desire to do things right, were elements that made it into more of a morality play. For all of the Greeks civilisation and advanced philosophy and learning, the central story seemed to be one of cause and effect where everyone needed to placate the gods or suffer the consequences of an early death or treacherous seas.

As I wasn't sure of what to expect, the fact that it is 'based on' and not an attempt at a 'faithful retelling' of the original didn't bother me. For me the abiding feeling is that this story is a love story. Penelope never gave up faith that even after 20 years since the Trojan Wars her Odysseus would one day return. Odysseus' honour drove him to humbly seek being reunited with his wife and in that sense there was a happy ending as he and Penelope sailed off into the sunset to honour his fallen soldiers.

I'm glad I've seen the film but at the moment, six days after having seen it, I'm pretty sure I don't need to repeat the experience. I did find myself checking my watch quite a few times as I was watching which is never a good sign in my books. However, this film is truly epic in every sense of the word. I'll give it 7.5/10.

Disclosure Day

Is this film Steven Spielberg's swansong? For 2 hours and 25 minutes this film encapsulates so many vignettes from Spielberg's past sci-fi repertoire which for me detracted from the narrative. The film is too long, the plot too simple but the acting is first class.

The US government has been suppressing news of alien encounters for decades ever since the Roswell incident. With the world in turmoil and seemingly on the brink of World War III, Dr Daniel Kellner (Josh O'Connor) who works for Wardex, the company protecting the archive of alien encounters, decides that the world needs to know about this. He steals files that will prove alien existence with the intention of disclosing the facts to the global population. The CEO of Wardex, Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth) mobilises his paramilitary forces to stop Keller and recover the stolen data. Who will succeed? Well, given the title of the film, there is little doubt.

As with so many Spielberg films, the story pivots on childhood experiences, in this case of Keller and TV weather presenter Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt). How the narrative resolves itself is creative and the  drama and suspense of the chase hooks the viewer, but for my money, it was too drawn out. There are some elements of the film that are almost slapstick in their awkwardness, which I felt were unnecessary.

Josh O'Connor's character is a brilliant mathematician but is pretty useless at running from danger. Emily Blunt's performance is worthy of award recognition while it is refreshing to see Colin Firth play a baddie with no romantic interest in the film. Or was he a baddie, or simply acting in the public interest? This conundrum runs throughout the film and clearly Scanlon becomes increasingly conflicted and in the end seems to simply give up. Can global society deal with this kind of disclosure? Do we really want to know that there has been contact?

The film left me feeling disappointed and now, three days on, that disappointment hasn't gone away. It's a film with an interesting concept and with great acting, but does that make it a great movie? For me, sadly, it does not. I've not spoiled how the plot unfolds - there is still plenty of meat on the bone. Go and see it for yourself and see what you make of it. I'm giving it 6/10.