Posts Tagged ‘Biography’

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Kevin Macdonald’s film The Last King of Scotland (2006) is based on the award-winning novel by the same title, written by journalist Giles Folden and published in 1998. The film, like the novel, interlaces fact and fiction. Factual history surrounding Idi Amin’s tyrannical rule of Uganda during the 1970s unfolds through the eyes of a fictional protagonist. The protagonist is Dr. Nicholas Garrigan who has just graduated from medical school in Scotland and sees working abroad as a means to escape the smothering clutches of his parents. What was supposed to be his ticket to freedom, eventually turns him into a slave of his own conscience.

Garrigan impresses Amin when he rushes to aid him during an accident and displays what Amin regards as a bold, heroic character. He is slow to accept Amin’s offer to be his personal physician, but he is eventually lured into the glamorous lifestyle and privileges that accompany the status of the role. The very arrogant, ignorant and naïve Garrigan is duped by Amin’s charisma at first, but as the film progresses, Amin reveals more and more of his tyranny and Garrigan realises that he is an unknowing accomplice to bloodshed and corruption. Things are not as innocent as they seem to be on the surface.

The performances of Forest Whitaker, who plays Amin, and James McAvoy who plays Garrigan, are superb. Whitaker captures the enigmatic extremities of Amin’s infantile charisma, neurosis and paranoia, terrifying brutality, absurd behaviour and laughable idiocy. McAvoy also gives a poignant performance of Garrigan’s frivolous arrogance which develops into a disillusioned realisation of the evils within himself and humankind as a whole.

The film starts off very light-heartedly, which reflects Garrigan’s ignorance and naivety. The director cleverly shows only bits and pieces of Amin to the viewer who is duped by the frivolous appearance of things. But as the plot progresses, more of Amin’s real cruel character is revealed along with other atrocities that happen under his command. A dark and sinister web of murder and brutality unravels and Garrigan, together with the viewer, realise that they have been fooled by the innocent appearance of things.

Do not expect a biography of Amin’s life and actions though. Very little of this is shown in the film and a lot of things are only insinuated. The film is not so much about Amin, as about Garrigan’s character development and his own moral conflict.

SPOILER WARNING: Garrigan parallels Amin in that he escapes prosecution for his sins. Amin only died in 2003 in exile in Saudi-Arabia and was never brought to justice. An estimated 300,000 people died in Uganda under his tyrannic rule in a span of but only 90 days. Garrigan also disrupts many lives, especially the lives of the women he beds without thinking of the moral implications or the deaths he is indirectly responsible for, yet he escapes death himself. Although he is punished by Amin and his assailants, he escapes with his life, while many other innocents die for his freedom. This left me quite disconcerted and disturbed, but only emphasises that life is not fair and that many innocent people die whilst guilty parties are never held accountable for their actions. The scene wherein Garrigan is hung from the ceiling by his skin is very explicit, but deliberately so, for it juxtaposes the binary categories of fact and fiction, appearance and reality, ignorance and knowledge, good and evil. SPOILER ENDS HERE.

INFO

Genre: Drama/Biography
Running time: 121 min
Country: UK
Director: Kevin Macdonald
Writing credits: Giles Foden (novel)
Jeremy Brock (screenplay)
Peter Morgan (screenplay)
Cinematographer: Anthony Dod Mantle
Editor: Justine Wright
Music: Alex Heffe
Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Main Cast:
Idi Dada Amin – Forest Whitaker
Nicholas Garrigan – James McAvoy
Sarah Merrit – Gillian Anderson
Kay Amin – Kerry Washington
Nigel Stone – Simon McBurney

Infamous (2006)

Infamous by Douglas McGrath is another take on Truman Capote’s writing of his best-selling novel In Cold Blood (1965). In 2005 Philip Seymour Hoffman starred in Capote, a leading role for which he won many awards, leaving Toby Jones with a hard act to follow in Infamous. The film recounts how a newspaper article on the four deaths of a Kansas family fuel Truman to write an article on the repercussions that such a murder has on the collective and individual psyches of the small town’s community. His childhood friend, Nelle Harper Lee (starring Sandra Bullock), who goes on to win a Pulitzer prize for To Kill a Mocking Bird, accompanies him to Kansas to aid his research. When his research yields fruitful results, he is inspired to write a novel and not just an article. As he becomes more and more entrenched with one of the killers named Perry (played by Daniel Craig), his endeavour becomes a five year project that ultimately consumes him.

The film may not be the best technically constructed product of the year, but it certainly is a very amusing and clever depiction of the people, the events and the themes surrounding the Kansas murders which In Cold Blood is based on. The way in which Truman is represented echoes his own representation of Perry in the novel: a full-rounded character, both with strengths and weaknesses, both with abominable and endearing qualities, a multidimensional, full-fleshed human. Truman is a socialite with superficial brash bravado, luxurious tastes, and he is at times an insensitive gossip who either embellishes on the stories he tells or betrays the confidences which his so-called closest friends entrust him with. But he is also a sensitive and substantial soul in his private life: friend to writer Nelle Harper Lee, a plain woman who avoids the limelight, and lover to Jack Dunphy, an unpolished and unsocial writer and playwright. The viewer experiences a roller-coaster ride of emotions for Truman: adoration, resentment, amusement, incredulity, sympathy, judgment.

In Cold Blood is a novel that is based on historical fact. Some critics denounced Truman for his unimaginative writing, and others praised his new art form. In 1966 in an interview with The New York Times, he himself said of the book: “It seemed to me that journalism, reportage, could be forced to yield a serious new art form: the ‘nonfiction novel’, as I thought of it…Journalism is the most underestimated, the least explored of literary mediums”. Faction has come a very long way since, and is very popular nowadays.

SPOILER WARNING: Truman’s novel was a melting pot for fact and fiction, and so too is this film. A lot of historical figures in the book accused him of misquoting them or changing what happened to suit the novel’s needs. Just like the reader of In Cold Blood has to wonder how much truth there really is in his fiction, the viewer of the film also has to question how much of Truman’s portrayal is truth or non-truth. Did he really give Perry the respect and attention he so desperately needed just to get him to cooperate on his novel? And did he really fall in love with him at the end? Did he really feel guilty about his betrayal? Was he actually haunted by being in love with a murderer?

The film begins and ends cyclically with Truman busy working on his new endeavour called Answered Prayers. He never managed to parallel In Cold Blood’s success, though. After its publication, he started work on Answered Prayers, a chronicle of his socialite life-style and friends. He never managed to complete it, yet several chapters of it was published in a magazine called Esquire in the 1970s. But it was met with negative feedback from critics and it caused him to alienate and lose many of his friends, who felt betrayed by his disclosure of their private lives in public. In the film it is said that In Cold Blood both made his career and ended it all at the same time. Truman succumbed to alcoholism and drug abuse to deal with his writer’s block and the negative criticism he received after his masterpiece, and died in 1984 without having rivaled In Cold Blood’s success. There is a very powerful scene where Nelle criticises Americans’ inability to be content with what a writer has already produced, and their greedy need for “what’s next”. As if a Pulitzer prize-winning novel is not enough, but has to be superceded and paralleled with the same success.

Writing demands a lot from a writer. Personally, I think that the close-up shot of his beginning of Answered Prayers, not only represents the end of Truman Capote, the man and the writer, but also links up with the following quote by Mother Theresa: “There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over unanswered prayers”. Truman craved fame, and he got it, but at what cost? One has to wonder whether the success of In Cold Blood was worth the obsession and ultimate destruction it caused. But it made him a legend, and of what little I’ve gotten to know about Truman, even though it cost him dearly, I think that he would not have had it any other way. SPOILERS END HERE.

How refreshing to see that Sandra Bullock could finally break through the stereotype mold we have become used to, and realise that she can really act – and well at that. I was really pleasantly surprised by her understated performance.

The film also addresses other contentious issues concerning murder: Is a troubled childhood really an excuse for committing murder? And is there really a difference between the unpremeditated murder of civilians and the premeditated killing of murderers sentenced to death? All in all, the film leaves one with a lot to meditate on.

INFO

Genre: Biography/Drama
Running time: 118 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Douglas McGrath
Writing credits:
George Plimpton (book)
Douglas McGrath (screenplay)
Producers: Jocelyn Hayes
Distributed by: Warner Independent Pictures
Main Cast:
Truman Capote – Toby Jones
Nelle Harper Lee – Sandra Bullock
Perry Smith – Daniel Craig
Alvin Dewey – Jeff Daniels
Slim Keith – Hope Davis
Gloria Guinness – Isabella Rossellini
Babe Paley – Sigourney Weaver
Gore Vidal – Michael Panes
Dick Hicock – Lee Pace
Kitty Dean – Gwyneth Paltrow

Factory Girl (2006)

Factory Girl, directed by George Hickenlooper, is based on the real-life friendship between Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller) and Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce) in the mid-sixties. Edie is an aspiring model that enchants Andy Warhol, an eclectic artist who is famous for being a painter, commercial illustrator, avant-garde filmmaker, music producer and writer. She visits “The Factory”, Warhol’s studio where he surrounds himself with other budding artists and produces his artworks. It is a match made in heaven: they feed on one another’s creativity and set the world ablaze with the films she stars in and he makes. Edie becomes a superstar, but struggles to keep afloat when her childhood demons and her superstar lifestyle eggs on a drug addiction which spirals out of control. Once a fire catches some wind, it is hard to keep under control.

There has been much controversy over this film and it is easy to comprehend why that is. The film is told solely from Edie Sedgwick’s perspective and a lot of blame is put on Andy Warhol for her demise. According to the Wikipedia, Lou Reed who was both a friend of Edie and a member of the Velvet Underground founded by Warhol, condemned the script: “I read that script. It’s one of the most disgusting, foul things I’ve seen—by any illiterate retard—in a long time. There’s no limit to how low some people will go to write something to make money”, as well as “They’re all a bunch of whores.” Bob Dylan is also allegedly infuriated by the character Billy Quinn in the film, clearly based on him, and feels that it portrays him as having attributed to Sedgwick’s drug addiction and downfall. But Edie’s brother, Jonathan, contends that the then-married Dylan and Edie indeed had an affair and that she had to abort their child due to her drug dependency and anorexia. This is not, however, included in the film.

I am not a sightseer and I do not know enough of Andy Warhol’s life or character, to choose a side or state what really occurred between Edie and Andy. Andy is not here to accuse the portrayal of what actually happened, and Edie is not here to defend it. But what I do know is that there is no absolute reality – only perception. And that no matter how flat one makes a pancake, there are always two sides. Edie definitely has some ownership in her choices and I do not deny that. But it does seem that Andy Warhol ruffled quite a few feathers on his ladder to ever greater success. There must be a good reason why Valerie Solanas tried to assassinate Warhol in 1968. It could not just be because she was a fanatic feminist who hated men and the patriarchy they represented. When asked about her motive, she replied that Warhol “had too much control over my life”.

So, for the sake of this review, let us assume that the film’s representation is trustworthy. Then the title of the film is quite self-explanatory. The Factory was the studio where many ideas and artworks were born. Warhol’s pop art celebrated the mass production of popular culture icons, and it seems he aided to manufacture Edie Sedgwick into a fashion icon that was copied and mimicked by countless ordinary girls, like soup cans on a conveyor belt. But it is all just for show and Edie is actually a hollow shell that loses herself in the appropriation of the identity of a superstar and the torment of parents devoid of love, support or affection. It might just be that Warhol was jealous of Edie’s relationship with “Billy Quinn”, or that he grew tired of her and her drug addiction and craved something new, fresh and exciting. And that she could not handle being rejected by Andy, the father figure that once adored her.

Technically, I feel that the film is very well constructed, filmed and edited. The black and white grainy camera shots and the unsteady camera give a real documentary feel. The mise en scène successfully transports one back to the sixties era. And the out-of-focus camera shots imitate the helplessness, chaos and stupor of drug addiction. Even though Sienna Miller’s portrayal has been criticised by some anti-Sienna fanatics, I believe she played the role very convincingly. The jury is still out on whether the handsome Guy Pearce was miscast as Andy. At least the make-up did well to hide Guy’s good looks and added to the authenticity of Andy’s blotched and pigmented skin due to the St. Vitus’ disease he contracted as a child. And Hayden Christensen might just be too much of a light-weight as the Dylan-type rock star. You be the judge…

INFO

Genre: Drama / Biography
Running time: 90 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: George Hickenlooper
Writing credits: Aaron Richard Golub (story)
Captain Mauzner (story and screenplay)
Simon Monjack (screenplay)
Producers: Aaron Richard Golub
Holly Wiersma
Cinematographer: Michael Grady
Editor: Dana E. Glauberman
Michael Levine
Distributed by: The Weinstein
Company/MGM (USA)
Paramount Pictures (UK)
Main Cast:
Edie Sedgwick – Sienna Miller
Andy Warhol – Guy Pearce
Billy Quinn – Hayden Christensen
Richie Berlin – Mena Suvari
Syd Pepperman – Shawn Hatosy
Chuck Weinn – Jimmy Fallon
Julia Warhol – Beth Grant

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.