QUADROPHENIA (1979)
Directed by Franc Rodham
Starring: Phil Daniels, Leslie Ash, Phillip Davis, Mark Wingett, Ray Winstone, Sting
Many times on this blog, I've reviewed film that were adaptations. And, most of those times, I made the statement that I was unfamiliar with the source material and, therefore, couldn't say whether or not the film was a faithful adaptation.
This time, however, I'm extremely familiar with the source material: the classic 1973 rock opera by The Who, Quadrophenia. Depending on who you ask, it's either the seminal portrait of early '60s teenage angst, or an overblown love letter from The Who to themselves. Personally, I'm in the former category. It's one of my all-time favorite albums, painting a picture of a young man trying to find his way in a world he doesn't feel a part of. The album is not without its faults, though. Pete Townshend may be an amazing songwriter, but he's not the best storyteller. The album's story becomes somewhat muddled and confusing if listened to on its own. Thankfully, Townshend was probably aware of this, so the original issue of the album came complete with a short story and a photo book to help keep the listening audience from becoming too confused.
But where the album comes up short on plot, it more than makes up for musically and thematically. The protagonist, Jimmy, is a Mod in the early 60's who wants nothing more than to fit in with his Mod friends and engage in as much pill-fueled mayhem as possible. He also claims to suffer from multiple personality disorder (he calls himself "Quadrophenic," a play on "schizophrenic"), with each of his personalities represented by a musical theme, all of which pop up in different places on the album, and all meld together in the penultimate track, "The Rock."
Naturally, such a heady concept would be difficult to capture on film. So how does this adaptation measure up?
First of all, it should be noted that this film, oddly enough, is not a musical. Unlike the film version of The Who's previous rock opera Tommy, Quadrophenia eschews the "song and dance" style and instead opts for a more gritty, realistic approach. The songs from the album are treated more as mood music than anything else. It works well at some points, but the album is very synth-heavy. And seeing as how there were hardly - if any - synthesizers in early '60s rock n' roll, the effect can be very jarring at times. We go from scenes featuring rock bands in dingy clubs (and an appearance from The Who on Ready, Steady, Go! on the TV) to a much more modern soundtrack. Sometimes it works (such as with the acoustic number "I'm One"), and other times, it sounds much too advanced to fit into the world we're seeing on screen.
The story of Jimmy (Daniels) is much expanded on the screen. However, the focus of the film is less about Jimmy trying to fit in, and more about the rivalry the Mods had with Britain's other music-based movement of the time, the Rockers. Jimmy's old friend and neighbor Kevin (Winstone) is a Rocker, forcing him to choose sides between his old friend or his new friends. The other emphasis is on the drug-fueled mayhem, of which there is much. Amphetamines were the drug of choice for the Mods, so Jimmy spends much of the film running wild during the night and being sick and lethargic during the day. These two parts of Jimmy's life come to a head during a road trip to Brighton, where he and the other Mods start a full-scale riot when trying to accost a couple of Rockers who'd been harassing them. Jimmy and several others are arrested, including the coolest of the Mods, known simply as "Ace Face" (Sting). But Jimmy's parents get word of what happened (and find his stash of pills) and kick him out of the house. Jimmy quits his job, is rejected by his sweetheart and starts to rebel even against his friends. With more pills and a quart of gin, he hops the train back to Brighton, only to find out that the Ace Face he admired so much works as a bell boy at a posh oceanside hotel. Disillusioned with everything he though he believed in, he steals Ace's motor scooter and drives it off a cliff.
Where the album was more of a broad, abstract painting of a disaffected youth, the film gives us a more detailed portrait, not only of the character, but of the time. But unlike some other rock films, such as Pink Floyd: The Wall, this is not a literal interpretation. Liberties are taken with the character and the story, which isn't a bad thing. The original was pretty vague to begin with, so to have some of the gaps filled in help move things along quite well. However, there is one glaring omission: the aspect of Jimmy's split personalities. The idea is suggested by Jimmy's dad, but it's never expanded on. The only illness seems to be Jimmy's drug-induced paranoia, which eventually gets the best of him. The four themes from the album are still there, but in the context of the film, they don't mean anything. Again, they're just mood music. And that, along with the story possibilities lost with the omission of this plot point, seems like a huge waste.
That's not to say this is a bad film. It's actually quite a good one, with a lot to like. But fans of the album may find themselves disappointed in the final product. I would suggest to anyone who's not either heard the album or seen the movie to do both. They compliment each other well, each making up for the weakness of the other.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Day 84: 22 Short Films About Middle Earth
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012)
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Sylvester McCoy
Featuring appearances by: Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Andy Serkis, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm
Normally, the title of my reviews are taken from a line of dialogue in the film. But as I sat through The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, this joke, dumb though it may be, kept popping into my head. Why? Because the first hour or so of this marathon film is mostly backstory and exposition. One hour into a film called The Hobbit, and Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) has about 10 minutes of screen time. As if he's a bit player in his own movie.
And this brings me to my chief complaint about this film: it's long. Really long. I've sat through three-hour films before, and they're a crap-shoot. Either that three hours flies by because you're so entranced by what you're seeing, or your looking at your watch, wondering when the whole thing is going to be over. I was in the latter camp for this movie, though I didn't think I would be. After all, Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is probably my favorite movie trilogy ever (yes, I even like it more than the original Star Wars trilogy). But the epic length was necessary for The Lord of the Rings in order to fit in as much from the book as possible. As a book, The Hobbit is a quarter of the length. How, then, will Peter Jackson expand it into three epic films?
By adding as much of Tolkien's Middle Earth mythos as possible.
J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle earth was not just contained in two books. He wrote volumes about the history and mythology of his make-believe world of elves, dwarves, men and hobbits. And Jackson draws from these other works as well, padding out a film that would have been perfectly entertaining at two hours, and instead ballooning it to three. Not all of the padding was done this way, but a majority of it was. As a result, when the film goes off on these tangents, it becomes unfocused, and left me looking at my watch.
But the preceding lengthy rant should not give you the idea that I hated this movie. Quite the opposite, in fact. I liked it quite a bit. When the film focuses on Bilbo and the band of dwarves, going off to reclaim their homeland, it's a funny, action-packed, entertaining piece of work. Almost like the best action films. Martin Freeman is wonderful as the young Bilbo Baggins, claiming the role as his own, and not trying to feed off Ian Holms' previous portrayal. Ian McKellen reprises his role as Gandalf the Grey, and picks up right where he left off from The Lord of the Rings. Richard Armatage plays the dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield, and does a fine job in the role, taking the part of the dwarves from merely comedy relief to actual, respected warriors. Probably for that reason, they decided not to give him the stereotypical bulbous nose and red cheeks some of the other dwarves had.
But the real star here is the country of New Zealand. Once again, Peter Jackson films his native land with a lush vibrancy usually reserved for nature documentaries. In fact, everything in this film looked amazing. Much has been made of the fact that Jackson shot the film at 48 frames per second (twice as fast as the standard 24 fps). The reasoning behind this was that it would reduce motion blur and make for a much crisper image, which is exactly what I saw. I understand, however, that this new technique didn't translate well to 3-D. But I didn't see it in 3-D (which I try to avoid whenever possible). My only concern was that it was going to look like the world's most expensive soap opera. But as it turns out, I had nothing to worry about.
If you are a die-hard Tolkien fan, you are absolutely going to love this movie. In fact, chances are good you've seen it multiple times by now (I love being so current). But the movie's length and tendency to wander may make it harder for casual fans, or those who had never read the book, to get into it. But if you've got the time for it, it's certainly worth a look.
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Sylvester McCoy
Featuring appearances by: Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Andy Serkis, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm
Normally, the title of my reviews are taken from a line of dialogue in the film. But as I sat through The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, this joke, dumb though it may be, kept popping into my head. Why? Because the first hour or so of this marathon film is mostly backstory and exposition. One hour into a film called The Hobbit, and Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) has about 10 minutes of screen time. As if he's a bit player in his own movie.
And this brings me to my chief complaint about this film: it's long. Really long. I've sat through three-hour films before, and they're a crap-shoot. Either that three hours flies by because you're so entranced by what you're seeing, or your looking at your watch, wondering when the whole thing is going to be over. I was in the latter camp for this movie, though I didn't think I would be. After all, Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is probably my favorite movie trilogy ever (yes, I even like it more than the original Star Wars trilogy). But the epic length was necessary for The Lord of the Rings in order to fit in as much from the book as possible. As a book, The Hobbit is a quarter of the length. How, then, will Peter Jackson expand it into three epic films?
By adding as much of Tolkien's Middle Earth mythos as possible.
J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle earth was not just contained in two books. He wrote volumes about the history and mythology of his make-believe world of elves, dwarves, men and hobbits. And Jackson draws from these other works as well, padding out a film that would have been perfectly entertaining at two hours, and instead ballooning it to three. Not all of the padding was done this way, but a majority of it was. As a result, when the film goes off on these tangents, it becomes unfocused, and left me looking at my watch.
But the preceding lengthy rant should not give you the idea that I hated this movie. Quite the opposite, in fact. I liked it quite a bit. When the film focuses on Bilbo and the band of dwarves, going off to reclaim their homeland, it's a funny, action-packed, entertaining piece of work. Almost like the best action films. Martin Freeman is wonderful as the young Bilbo Baggins, claiming the role as his own, and not trying to feed off Ian Holms' previous portrayal. Ian McKellen reprises his role as Gandalf the Grey, and picks up right where he left off from The Lord of the Rings. Richard Armatage plays the dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield, and does a fine job in the role, taking the part of the dwarves from merely comedy relief to actual, respected warriors. Probably for that reason, they decided not to give him the stereotypical bulbous nose and red cheeks some of the other dwarves had.
But the real star here is the country of New Zealand. Once again, Peter Jackson films his native land with a lush vibrancy usually reserved for nature documentaries. In fact, everything in this film looked amazing. Much has been made of the fact that Jackson shot the film at 48 frames per second (twice as fast as the standard 24 fps). The reasoning behind this was that it would reduce motion blur and make for a much crisper image, which is exactly what I saw. I understand, however, that this new technique didn't translate well to 3-D. But I didn't see it in 3-D (which I try to avoid whenever possible). My only concern was that it was going to look like the world's most expensive soap opera. But as it turns out, I had nothing to worry about.
If you are a die-hard Tolkien fan, you are absolutely going to love this movie. In fact, chances are good you've seen it multiple times by now (I love being so current). But the movie's length and tendency to wander may make it harder for casual fans, or those who had never read the book, to get into it. But if you've got the time for it, it's certainly worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)