Review: Frank

If there's one thing that this year in film seems to be trying to teach us, it's that being a musician REALLY sucks. From the monotonous loop of Inside Llewyn Davis to the stories of the astonishingly talented but marginalised back-up singers of 20 Feet From Stardom, one of the most glamorous and bright professions has never looked so dark. And Frank, the fourth film from Irish director Lenny Abrahamson, does a lot to reinforce this idea.

It's a film of two halves really - the first is full of laughs, a whimsical soundtrack and Michael Fassbender capering in the Irish countryside with a paper mache head on that seemingly represents the ideas we perceive of the fun it must be to be a musician, The second half, which finds the film's location shifted to America as the band await their first "big" gig at SXSW is a jarring change in tone, revealing the true darkness of mental illness, the music business and social media. We're led through both halves of the film by Domhall Gleeson's Jon, a budding musician from an unnamed suburban town who works in an office and attempts to compose (really, really awful) songs on his keyboard. After the band's keyboardist attempts to drown himself in Jon's sleepy seaside town, he finds himself being swept up into the madness of the band, simultaneously idolising and being confused by Frank.

It's a shame really that we're forced to spend so much of the film with Gleeson, because he really is one of its biggest downfalls. His simultaneously overly mannered and expressionless acting pushes the audience (or at least this audience member) away from him, when he's supposed to be a character that we really sympathise with. Because of this, every single bad thing that happened to Jon throughout the course of the film elicited a grin from me - not, as far as I know, the reaction that Abrahamson was hoping for. Luckily, the film is saved by an array of good performances from its other actors, especially Michael Fassbender's titular Frank. True, it's rare for Fassbender to give a less than excellent performance and many's been the time that his performances have saved a film from being utterly dire - Prometheus immediately springs to mind - but here he is really set free. Due to him wearing a large paper mache head, it's a highly physical performance, and it's an utter delight to see a normal straight laced and sinister character actor leaping around. Scoot McNairy is also excellent as the band's manager and ex-keyboard player who, just like Frank has a dark yet oddly comical quirk, and although her character's rather one note, Maggie Gyllenhaal really puts her all in.

To quote the film itself - how to describe Frank? It's rather hard, owing to the film's fragmented nature. Just as you settle into the tone of the film, it abruptly changes, and while I found myself enjoying both halves of it, the latter, and especially the film's final musical number, is what I found lingering in my mind. Frank tries to comment on a lot of issues, some more successfully than others, but Abrahamson has certainly made a valiant effort to say a lot in a short amount of time. But despite all of its faults, the film is really about two things - the music and Fassbender. If you're looking to see thought-provoking comments about social issues, then this may not be for you. But if all you really want is to see everyone's favourite Irish/German actor playing guitar in a variety of cardigans and a giant head, then you've found your perfect film.

3/5

Grace Barber-Plentie

Is 12 Years a Slave Too Good For The Oscars?

Despite having seen it twice, and having 3 months to mediate on the film between viewings, it's still hard to find the exact words to describe 12 Years a Slave. Incredible? Horrible? Controversial? A sell-out? One thing that can be agreed on by most parties is that it's exactly the sort of film that deserves to win ALL THE OSCARS. But after a disappointing result at Sunday's Golden Globes, (where it only received one award out of the seven that it was nominated for) I'm beginning to think that maybe it won't do too well when March rolls around.

The cast and crew celebrate winning Best Drama Film at a ceremony where they should've won everything.

Let's start with the obvious - The Academy do have an annoying habit of effing up, especially when it comes to the Best Picture award. A film by Ben Affleck won last year. Rocky won instead of Taxi Driver, Forest Gump won instead of Pulp Fiction. How Green Was My Valley won instead of Citizen Kane. And let's not forget the oddest travesty of all - way back in 2005, Crash won in the place of Ang Lee's extraordinary Brokeback Mountain. What do all four of the films that were cruelly ignored have in common? They're all timeless classics, made by esteemed directors. The winning films are still famous of course, but I'm not sure anyone would ever deign to describe any of them as the "best film ever".

Even Jack Nicholson, who was giving out the award, was not expecting Crash to win.

Secondly, with the exception of actors like Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep, who give consistently good performances regardless of the quality of their films, I feel like The Academy never really give Best Actor or Actress to quite the right people. Although, that's mainly because most of the time they haven't even nominated the actors that gave the best performances of the year - Sam Rockwell in 2009 and Denis Levant in 2012, come on guys - The Oscars also have a tendency to go for the obviously. It seems very unlikely that Chiwetel Ejiofor will miss out on a Best Actor nomination - ditto Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong'o for Supporting Actor/Actress - but will they really be rewarded? After all three missed out on winning at the Golden Globes, it seems as though their chances are slipping somewhat.

We're all aware that The Academy love true stories, but that also means that Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto or (groan) Jennifer Lawrence could easily overshadow them. Plus, there's something important that sets American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street apart from 12 Years - they're "fun"! Were I voting, this would put me off, but we should all be aware that sometimes fun films with a "dark" side (e.g. Chicago, The Artist and Silver Linings Playbook) win big awards. Dallas Buyer's Club is pretty much the opposite of fun, but it still has some optimism running through it. 12 Years a Slave of course does not. The only time I felt optimistic whilst watching it is when Michael Fassbender showed up. Then I realised he was an evil psychopath and the horror continued on.

The cast of the "fun" American Hustle doing their thang.

There's another angle to look at all of this though, one that sounds less like a miserable rant against the tyranny of the Oscars and more like praise of the film. Maybe that film doesn't need Oscars. I'm not saying that statues wouldn't be the perfect recognition of Ejiofor, Fassbender and Nyong'o's incredible performances, Mcqueen's direction, Zimmer's score, Ridley's script and the (hopefully) many others that get nominated, because it would of course. It would also suggest some radical change within the film industry, as Mcqueen and Ejiofor would be the first black britons to win Best Director and Actor. It would also show the Academy genuinely giving awards to the right people for once, instead of messing it up. But what will happen if the film doesn't pick up any awards? Will it just disappear from existence in a ball of flames, never to be thought of again? No. The opposite in fact. Can you imagine how many angry articles similar to this will be published if the film gets snubbed? How many debates about race in Hollywood will start? There will be even more furore over the incompetence and unfairness of awards than ever. 12 Years has been getting us to look at our past with different eyes, so perhaps it being snubbed will get us to reexamine our present and future with regards to the film industry.

And really, shouldn't the film itself be the perfect reward for the cast and crew? It is a perfect piece of cinema as it stands, and the addition of the words "Oscar Winner" to its poster will do nothing to alter this for good or bad. Surely being able to watch themselves transform into these characters should be enough for the cast? And surely watching his vision completed on the big screen should be enough for McQueen? If the worst comes to the worst when the nominations are announced tomorrow, or on the big day, I think that this will be enough for me. We all know that 12 Years a Slave is a good film. Now we'll have to see if the Oscars are good enough to reward it. 

Grace Barber-Plentie

LFF Review: 12 Years a Slave

It seems almost redundant at this point to compare Steve McQueen's third film and potential breakthrough into Hollywood to Quentin Tarantino's blood-spattered "Southern" Django Unchained, and yet, it also seems impossible not to. After all, the films are so similar, and so very different. Having watched Django just a few days ago, it remains all too fresh in my head. And while, at the beginning of the year, I was very much sold on Django as a film that managed to combine both the suffering of slavery with unmistakably Tarantino-ish gestures, (blood, feet... more blood...) 12 Years a Slave without a doubt is greater than Django (and this comes from an undying Tarantino fan), and, in all honesty, most films that have so far been released this year.

The film tells the real-life tale of Solomon Northup, a freeborn black man and classical violinist, who is unwittingly kidnapped on a trip to Washington. From here, Northup is sold into slavery, and is put through a series of harrowing ordeals as a slave. For TWELVE WHOLE YEARS. So far, so white guilt, but unlike pretty much every director who's made a film about slavery, McQueen (who is himself black, though really his race should be irrelevant with regards to this film) is surprisingly unsentimental. He doesn't need to be. The thought of slavery alone is a horrible one, and there are scenes in this film that had me crying without the saccharine melodrama of Hollywood. So while, with all slavery films, we can see that the white slave owners are of course in the wrong, we don't cheer when wrong befalls them like we do when Django shoots someone in the genitals. Probably because everybody is too busy sobbing into their popcorn.

One thing that has been universally heralded are the performances. You may hear the words "power-house" thrown around in the next few months, and these descriptions are completely accurate. Chiwetel Ejifor has always been a remarkable actor, from Love Actually to the brilliant Dirty Pretty Things, and now finally comes the time for him to be revealed as the star that he really is. If he doesn't receive Best Actor come January, I'm sure a lot of people, myself included, will be eating their proverbial hats. Also astonishing and award-worthy is newcomer Lupita Nyong'o as fellow slave Patsey, the unfortunate object of her master's lust and mistresses hatred. In fact, it feels a little mean to draw just those two actors out of an ensemble who are all at the top of their game. I've had many reasons to be angry at Michael Fassbender over the years, (the domestic abuse claim, the time he ordered his drink wrong in Inglorious Basterds...) but working for the third time with McQueen and back in the crazy zone, he is brilliant.

I feel a little cruel writing this review as I remember that this film isn't actually out in the UK until 2014. But I haven't felt such a strong sense of passion, a sense of "everything about that was perfect" about a film for a long while. It seems incredible that such a film about slavery can really have been made by a British man, but it's true. When we come to look back on slavery, when children are educated and we come to reflect on 2013/14 in film, 12 Years a Slave will, I'm sure, instantly jump out. McQueen has added yet another classic to an ever-flourishing career.

Grace Barber-Plentie