Autolux 'Transit Transit'

The long awaited follow up to Autolux's outstanding debut 'Future Perfect' is finally here! With six years having passed and a number of delayed and postponed release dates for 'Transit Transit', it is finally seeping through my speakers via myspace, its official release date being August 2nd. As an enormous fan of 'Future Perfect' my excitement at the release of 'Transit Transit' has been building and gathering momentum with every failed release date over the last two years or so.

However, I wonder if it is for this reason that on my first hearing I feel slightly disappointed. Maybe with a few more listens it will grow into an equally fitting follow up to a debut of such promise and potential, yet my immediate response is one of frustration. Whilst there is nothing particularly wrong with any of these new tracks, it is hard to detect any of the beauty or intensity present on their debut offering.

The main problem here appears to be a far greater leaning towards experimentalism than is really necassary. Autolux have always possessed a deftly balanced formula of Sonic Youth-esque experimentation and wonderfully simplistic hooks, 'Turnstile Blues', 'Blanket' and 'Capital Kind of Strain' being clear examples. This time around, at least after only one listen, the hooks and melodies are few and far between. 'Supertoys', the lead single from 'Transit Transit', clearly demonstrates this point, sounding rather like and interesting b-side than a surging return from a six year absence. In fact, 'Supertoys' quite adequately epotomises my view of the album as a whole; while it is more than capable of drawing you in, it's just crying out for a little bit more, something to transform it from a good idea into a great song. Other tracks to illustrate this point further appear in the form of 'Kissproof' and 'Headless Sky', each displaying plenty of promise yet not quite delivering in the way one would hope .

The album's obvious highlights both feature drummer Carla Azar on vocals, a direction I would love to see more of if the band continue in the path of 'Transit Transit'. In the absence of any real musical hooks, the beautiful fragility and subtlety of Azar's vocals create a wonderfully dream-like effect on 'The Bouncing Wall' and achieve similar results on album closer 'The Science of Imaginary Solutions'. So, in spite of my slight disappointment that 'Transit Transit' doesn't quite meet the dizzying expectations set by 'Future Perfect', it is still one of the best albums I've heard so far this year.

Inception

As a huge fan of the work of Christopher Nolan, I was genuinely excited about the release of 'Inception'. With an enormous budget, an excellent cast and a director whose work somehow seems to improve with every film, this should undoubtedly be a contender for film of the year. Given the staggering commercial success of 'The Dark Knight', Nolan, it would appear, has been given free reign to make 'Inception' with no studio interference, allowing the director to create a film purely of his own vision, free from any constraints. So, it is with a hint of disappointment that, for me, 'Inception' does not deliver in the way I hoped so dearly that it would.

By no means is it a bad film. In fact, had this been the work of a director I wasn’t such a fan of, I may have enjoyed the film considerably more, as the weight of expectation and anticipation would have been far less. 'Inception' is on many levels, an absolute success. Visually, it sets a new standard in how to use CGI both intelligently and innovatively, creating dreamscapes in which buildings and whole streets can literally be folded and manipulated at the command of the dream ‘architecht’.

The scenes played out between DiCaprio and Page, in which she learns how to alter her dream surroundings are as immersive and spectacular as any special effects blockbuster I have seen. Furthermore, there are some superbly choreographed scenes created mechanically, allowing the film to flow without being wholly reliant on CGI. The fight scene in the hotel, in which the character of Arthur appears to be floating and fighting in zero gravity through the corridors, is particularly worthy of mention. The cast also play their part, with each of the core members providing flawless performances, DiCaprio once again furthering his credentials as one of Hollywood’s finest contemporaries.

With such a combination of excellent cast, director and engaging subject matter, why is that 'Inception' doesn’t quite deliver on all fronts? It is my belief that while it is great to see an intelligent, complex, big budget blockbuster in our cinemas, its feels as though 'Inception' slightly over-stretches itself in terms of complex and highly convoluted ideas and plot threads. As we move with the characters through various layers of dreams, the lines betweens each become increasingly blurred, at times, running the risk of alienating its audience. Some may argue that this is the very purpose of the film; to immerse the audience so deeply into the worlds and layers of the dream that they become lost in the world of the characters.

For me, however, the resulting feeling was merely one of uncertainty as to what was really happening. While I was able to understand the overall plot clearly enough, it is the somewhat convoluted explanations that prevent 'Inception' from being a complete success. The idea of unconventional narrative structure and exposition is not new territory for Nolan, as we have seen in his superbly constructed thriller 'Memento', a film which I believe achieves a superior balance between conceptual complexity and narrative exposition. However, while it may not be perfect, 'Inception' is certainly a huge step in the right direction for thought-provoking, intelligent blockbusters.

Bronson

On paper, the idea of making a biopic based on the life of Britain’s most violent prisoner, Charles Bronson, seems almost certainly to be a bad idea. The potential pitfalls are endless. First off, there is the problem of not only who would be best suited to the role, but also, who would want to take on such a risky role? Then there is also the balancing act of allowing enough insight into the acts and crimes of such a character, whilst maintaining a safe enough distance as to not glorify or glamorise the violence or the dangerous nature of such a man.

Thankfully, Nicolas Winding Refn’s ’Bronson’ strikes just about the perfect balance, being one of the most interesting biopics I have seen in recent years. For anyone who has seen the equally brilliant ‘Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll’, the biopic of Ian Dury, you may well recognise a very similar style of narrative exposition and stylistic subversions.

As is the case with ‘Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll’, ‘Bronson’ tells its protagonist's story through a series of fictional performance sequences. We see various incarnations of a manic Charles Bronson speaking and performing the key moments of his story to an imaginary, silhouetted audience, whom laugh and applaud the often appalling tales being recounted. While on the surface this may sound as though his acts are being glorified, they always maintain a dream-like distance from reality, clearly denoting that such reactions exist only in Bronson’s head.

With regards to the starring role, Tom Hardy gives, in my opinion, an Oscar worthy performance. Providing moments of extreme brutality and terrifying volatility, Hardy is near flawless as Bronson. The disturbing insanity of Hardy’s portrayal is beautifully offset by occasional moments of vulnerability, in a performance of extraordinary versatility. One example being the scene in which he is reunited with his parents on release from prison. The scenes of violence and assault are dealt with unflinchingly yet not gratuitously. We are shown enough to suggest just how dangerous and animalistic Bronson can be without the need for lingering scenes of violence or the use of needless shock tactics. Equal praise should be heaped on Refn’s distinctive direction, as he beautifully balances violence, structural experimentation and narrative exposition to such engaging and informative effect.

Get Carter

As a film that has been lauded as one of the all-time classics of British cinema, I was somewhat disappointed with just how crass, misogynist and, suprisingly, dull Mike Hodges' 'Get Carter' actually is. Every aspect of this film reeks of the macho, gender stereotype perpetuating bullshit that has become so synonymous with the works of Guy Ritchie, anything starring Danny Dyer or Vinnie Jones, and all those other repugnant Brit gangster fairytales. Tales that only really exist in the wet dreams of macho schoolboys and, well, Guy Ritchie, Danny Dyer and Vinnie Jones. It seems that through the ages, these types of film have been labelled 'gritty' or 'social realist', whereas they are merely just stupid and lazy.

As is the case with almost every British gangster movie, just about every character is entirely one-dimensional; the men exist in a place and share the kind of thuggish dialogue that is so far removed from reality that it's both unengaging and utterly uninteresting. The sole purpose of women in 'Get Carter' is to bare their breasts and make tea. This is not an exaggeration. In one particularly bizzarre scene, Carter makes a phone call to Brit Eckland's character, Anna, and coldly tells her to get undressed and writhe around semi-naked on her bed, which she does with great relish, with extreme close-up shots of her breasts of course. While this sequence appears to serve no genuine purpose whatsoever, Eckland's role in the film being something of a mystery, what makes it even stranger is that he holds this conversation whilst sitting in the same room as the land lady of the B&B he's staying in, as she rocks hypnotically back and forth in the foreground of the shot, as if mesmerised by Carter's commands. All very odd. Furthermore, we later discover that Carter and the land lady are also sleeping together. Following a violent exchange between Carter and some other tough guys, when confronted by the land lady, Carter deals with the situation accordingly; gives her a slap and asks for some tea, an order she is then happy to oblige.

Frankly, for a film of such stature and enormous critical acclaim, I expected better. It is scenes such as this that serve to highlight, in my view, that 'Get Carter' provides the blue print for each of the abysmal British ‘tough guy’ films we have been subjected to since the arrival of Guy Ritchie and those of his ilk; that whilst there have undoubtedly been worse films made since 'Get Carter' that belong to this questionable genre, this is the point to where those films can be traced. In fact, if 'Get Carter' were released now, I am almost certain that it would be seen as a piece of throwaway trash, rather than an example of great British film making.

I am aware that a remake of 'Get Carter' was released in 2000 and was roundly panned by critics and audiences. As I haven't seen this version I cannot make any comparisons, yet I wonder if its dire reception was due to the fact it is a poor re-make or simply that it is just a bad film. The disappointing thing is, is that it is possible to make perfectly good British gangster films. ’Sexy Beast’ (Jonathan Glazer), ’The Long Good Friday’ (John Mackenzie) and ’44 Inch Chest’ (Malcolm Venville) being glowing examples of how to subvert the tired conventions of this genre to astonishing effect. Each of these films depict characters of far greater depth and superior plot development, providing a substantially more engaging experience for its audience. With 'Sexy Beast' Glazer has created characters of such multi-layered complexity in the form of Gary (Ray Winstone) and Don (Ben Kingsley) yet, sadly, awareness of this masterpiece is still so minimal in comparison to the likes of 'Get Carter', 'Lock Stock...' and 'Snatch' (Guy Ritchie).