The Proposition (2005) A Review

Hi guys, this is my first film review so wish me luck. My decision came to fruition after watching the film, I immediately typed it's name into Google, wishing to do my routine checking of it's critical statuses on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. However, I realized just before I hit enter that I seem to lack any personal opinions about movies, instead basing it on the public opinion of the film. So that's why I'm writing my first proper film review, you can ignore my Dark Knight Rises one in 2012 which I wrote after being exposed to a plethora of online criticism, I wouldn't even call it a review considering I was 14 at the time. So this is my first attempt at an honest and untouched opinion, well, disregarding the fact that I decided to watch the film after seeing it's IMDB rating of 7.5.
So to begin, The film takes place in presumably 19th century Australia and surrounds an outlaw played by Guy Pearce, who is offered a proposition by a town sheriff (played by Ray Winstone) to kill his outlaw brother in exchange for his and his younger brothers freedom. However, things don't turn out to be so simple. Without spoiling anything, the film opens very suddenly and violently, shocking the viewer to attention. With the first few shots of the film, Hillcoat establishes the tone to be unflinching and brutal. As its setting is 19th century Australia, a period of colonization and violence against the local aborigines, the brutal facade the film puts up seems only natural. The film, whilst relatively slow paced, is beautifully shot by cinematographer Benoit Denholmme and features many still shots of the Australian outback. One may even wonder whether some shots were real or created on a computer, one shot in particular would make anyone question this as it seems to defy the laws of camera exposure - although I cannot say as I've never been out in the Australian outback at dusk. The film is ultimately a performance piece, as Emily Watson and Danny Huston among many keep the film's brutal realism alive. Guy Pearce is as usual great, Ray Winstone, whilst playing Ray Winstone (although one cannot blame the distinctive voice) manages to create a heartfelt portrayal of his conflicted character. As director Paul Thomas Anderson said: an actor is the greatest special effect you can have in a film. Furthermore, the score by Nick Cave is also commendable, as it helps to emphasize the dreary nature of the film.Violent acts (of which the film has many) are committed in a blatant fashion, as Hillcoat emphasizes the brutality and hostility of the Australian west. In addition, small details such as flies which casually stick onto the character's faces help to further the realism of the film. Whilst The Proposition may seem tedious to some viewers, it had a powerful impact on me. John Hillcoat (an Australian national) and Nick Cave (the screenwriter) draw an unflinching portrayal of the Australian outback, and in doing so, provide a time machine back to when humanity was less civilized, to perhaps entertain the viewer but essentially to show them the less commendable aspects of human nature.  

I've chosen a rating system out of 4, when before I was doing it out of 5, I think this encourages more laziness as one could just choose 3 if they were so conflicted and be done with it.
Let me just establish the context of the rating system by using some films as benchmarks, I won't be counting the halves except for rock bottom (0.5/4):
0.5/4 - Disgusting: ex. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (I have actually watched this)
1/4 - So bad it's good: ex. Troll 2, The Happening
2/4 - Just OK: ex. Avengers: Age of Ultron (Anything above this can be considered as recommended)
3/4 - It's Good: ex. Guardians of the Galaxy,
4/4 - Wow!: ex. Saving Private Ryan, Pulp Fiction

 So here's my rating: 3/4. (Halves are permitted by the way).

Regards,

Matthew

Concerning Film and Digital

In the current technological debate surrounding Cinema, there is a constant battle going on over whether people prefer Film or Digital as a medium for shooting. Pundits such as Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are huge advocates for film, and rightly so - 35mm can still resolve immense amounts of resolution and still offer excellent dynamic range. To be put simply, 35mm has set the standard for all digital cinema cameras. However, although people may have cringed at the home video looks of early digital cinema pictures such as Michael Mann's Miami Vice and Collateral, now it is a very different matter. With the advent of digital cinema camera's such as the Alexa and the Red, the gap is closing - and fast. Perhaps it has already closed with the Alexa 65, a monster of a camera which the film The Revenant was shot on. When before it used to be a question of quality, now its a question of the aesthetic and the 'look' of the film. To put it simply, I have no problem with those still using film. Although most people do not, being a film enthusiast I do see the slight differences, and sometimes it is incredibly satisfying to see that distinct 'look' in such a sharp digital world. Film is a more trustworthy medium of storage than digital, as hard drives seem to lose their reliability after five years whilst film kept in good storage can last a century. However my issue is not with the big guns who are using film, it's with indie filmmakers and low budget film-making. I'm sure there are many people out there who are yearning to shoot on film, and although I have never shot on the medium - I can assure many that it is almost useless - and here's why. Even though it may not be 35mm, film can still be very expensive to develop - especially for those working on tight budgets. Moreover, you don't really have the luxury of running the camera for ages to get a good performance out of an actor, and once a take is done and you don't like it, well then you're going to have trouble deleting it. The Alexa or Red image can easily match the quality of a 16mm negative, but you may ask: but it's about the look. Then here is my most important point: unless you have an ASC certified dp  or experienced cinematographer (who is familiar with film) working on your film, the decision to shoot on film would be more detrimental than beneficial. It's because without that experience and knowledge, many dps would not be able to exploit the film and utilize it to its full potential. Would you rather spend thousands of dollars on 35mm film which can only be used once or rent an Alexa? Ultimately, my point is that the quality of digital cinema has already equaled that of film, so although the giants of the industry can have their say, digital should dominate the low-budget world - and it does no doubt, this message is just for the few out there fighting a lost (and ultimately useless) cause. Moreover, now, artificial film emulators can be layered over a digital image to give it the look and color of film as well as the grain. In the end, story ultimately matters and everything else should be made as efficient as possible so that prime focus can be placed on the craft of storytelling. Even the top directors have realized this, for example, making Mad Max Fury Road would've been nearly impossible if it had been shot on film as they used a plethora of cheap digital cameras to get the shots they needed (5D Mark II, Olympus P5, Blackmagic Cinema Camera), film would've been far too frustrating to shoot on as it was such a technically complex film. Moreover, heavyweights like Soderbergh and Fincher (both film veterans) have embraced the Red Digital Cinema cameras because they realize the efficiency that comes with digital. Peter Jackson used 30 RED cameras for his Hobbit trilogy, something that would've been impossible if he had shot it on film. Essentially, it's about what best serves the story, and if that means abandoning that 'nostalgic' look that comes with film which so few of your audience would even notice, then digital should be a prerequisite for low budget film-making, but nevertheless, emulsion should always remain as an option.

To end it off, take some time to guess whether these films were shot on film or digital, answers are at the bottom:

Prisoners (2013) Film or Digital?

Ex Machina (2015) Film or Digital?

The Master (2012) Film or Digital?

Drive (2011) Shot on the Arri Alexa in 1080p

Blue is the Warmest Color (2013) Shot on the 7000 dollar Canon C300 in 1080p

Answers:
Prisoners (2013) - Digital, Ex Machina (2015) - Digital, The Master (2012) - Film