The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 — 5A
FILM REVIEW
‘Spectre’ doesn’t
live up to the hype
New Bond film falls
short of spectacular
previous installments
By RACHEL RICHARDSON
For The Daily
Despite the hype, “Spectre”
falls short of being something
spectacular.
While
not
the
worst of the recent Bond films,
it definitely isn’t on the same
level as “Casino
Royale”
and
“Skyfall.”
In the 26th
installment
of
the
Bond
series, a video
message
from
the
deceased
M (Judi Dench,
“The
Vote”)
leads Bond (Daniel Craig, “Sky-
fall”) on a mission to hunt and
destroy the leader of Spectre,
Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz,
“Big Eyes”). Predictably, Bond
must seek out a woman, the
daughter of “Quantum of Sol-
ace” villain Mr. White (Jesper
Christensen, “Ich und Kamin-
ski”), the easily irritable Made-
leine Swann (Léa Seydoux, “The
Lobster”), to locate the enemy.
While Bond frantically travels
through Austria, the rest of his
team faces a mole who is infil-
trating MI6’s headquarters.
Hoyte van Hoytema does an
excellent job with the cinema-
tography; however, his efforts
are not capable of saving the
film from being a disappoint-
ment. The film’s editor executes
the opening scene perfectly by
synching the on screen imag-
es with the film’s theme, Sam
Smith’s “Writing’s on the Wall.”
Transitions from the Spectre’s
octopus logo to shards of glass
and snakes slithering around
women’s bodies are seamless,
instantly drawing the viewer
into Bond’s world. As in the
film itself, the extended track-
ing shots during the opening
fight sequence in Mexico, sig-
nificantly elevate the action’s
intensity. Using long lenses,
makes it impossible to see what
or who is coming into the frame,
which leads to heightening both
the intensity and the suspense-
ful mood. The helicopter and
Aston Martin DB10 stunts are
incredibly executed — the best
stunt is when Bond grips the
outside rail of the helicopter as
it does a 360 in mid-air.
Craig excellently portrays
Bond’s suave, seductive ways
with his piercing blue eyes and
sharp suits, while his stern
facial expressions exude an
alarming sense of confidence
that only enhances Bond’s inde-
structibility. Of course, his mas-
sive muscles also add a degree
of intimidation to Bond’s char-
acter — they’re even powerful
enough to take down the freak-
ish Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista,
“TripTank”) However, without
the help of Q (Ben Whishaw,
“Cloud Atlas”), he would be
a significantly less efficient
agent. Q, whose name certain-
ly stands for quirky, provides
interesting depth to the movie
with his sharp contrast to Bond,
and the two have an almost
brotherly relationship. Unfor-
tunately, Q’s role in the film is
very limited, so his ability to
truly enhance the film is irrel-
evant.
While Bond’s MI6 team-
mates strengthen the film,
his enemies do not. Although
they both clearly hate Bond,
it’s hard to believe that either
is actually evil. Oberhauser’s
“villain creds” are quickly
diminished by his display of
affection for a fluffy white
persian cat, not to mention the
lackluster dialogue that makes
him seem anything but menac-
ing. Instead of being brashly
threatening, the conversations
between Bond, his team, the
two villains feels inappropri-
ately colloquial, much like the
typical dialect of spiteful sib-
lings and not that of hostile
adversaries.
Bond’s newest love doesn’t
fare much better as far as cred-
ibility goes. Other than the fact
that she can put a bullet through
someone’s head, Swann is just
like every other girl who has
crossed Bond’s path — foreign,
promiscuous and moody. It’s
hard to believe Swann is a psy-
chologist given the degree to
which Swann struggles with
maintaining
her
emotional
composure. Her constant whin-
ing and false-sounding griev-
ing is painful to both watch and
hear.
A majority of the movie is a
reference to past films instead
of developing a new storyline:
essentially, “Spectre” feels more
like a tribute than an entirely
new film. Bond wears a mask
during the Day of the Dead cel-
ebration in Mexico, which mim-
ics Baron Samedi’s skull mask in
“Live and Let Die.” Bond’s ask-
ing for his dirty martini to be
shaken, not stirred refers back
to the classic line in “Dr. No.”
For the final tribute hurrah, an
entire wall inside the old MI6
building is lined with posters of
all Bond’s previous villains and
deceased lovers, which Bond
suddenly stops to view even
though he’s running out of time
to make it out alive. These refer-
ences might enhance the expe-
rience for a Bond fanatic, but
they exist for the sole purpose
of being cutesy, and do not add
much to the film overall.
Unfortunately, what made
past Bond films so incredible
can’t effectively be recreated,
and definitely can’t be thrown
together in order to form
another movie. Had it been
focused on continuing Bond’s
adventure from where it left off
at the end of “Skyfall,” “Spec-
tre” could have been another
critical success in this new era
of Bond.
‘Shitty Boyfriends’
won’t fill your gaps
By DANIELLE YACOBSON
Daily Arts Writer
Misery loves company, and
there’s no better way for women
to commiserate together than
gossip
about
the
losers
they’ve dated.
“Shitty
Boy-
friends,”
an
original
web
series
from
executive
producers
Lisa
Kudrow
(“Friends”)
and Dan Bucatinsky (“Scandal”),
proves yet again how fictional
the perfect guys in rom-coms
are. Released on Refinery29, an
online news and fashion out-
let, the comedic show strikes a
chord when you’re feeling par-
ticularly screwed over by men,
but ‘Boyfriends’ won’t hold your
attention for long in comparison
to other more compelling con-
tent online.
Amanda
(Melissa
Hunter,
“Adult Wednesday”) is an up-
and-coming cartoon artist on the
hunt for The One. In each seven-
minute
episode
installment,
Amanda finds herself involved
with
yet
another
deadbeat.
While her exaggerated dating
faux pas are comical, the stilted
acting draws a noticeable divide
between the show and reality.
Desperately trying to abandon
her single status, Amanda looks
for love in the most obscure
prospects that inevitably fulfill
the show’s title. From one epi-
sode to another, Amanda leaves
her romances without any dis-
tinct lessons learned (unless the
moral is to immediately ditch
the guy who gifts her a sample
size Bath & Body Works spray
for Valentine’s Day). Unfor-
tunately, “Shitty Boyfriends”
focuses more on ridiculing men
than it does developing the hero-
ine’s character as a strong, inde-
pendent woman.
The series features Sandra
Oh (“Grey’s Anatomy”), who
slips naturally into the role of
the remorseless boss with a
killer fashion sense. Though Oh
only appears in three of the five
released episodes, her striking
presence leaves the audience
begging for more screentime.
It seems there is more curiosity
surrounding her love life than
Amanda’s.
The show fully elucidates
the ludicrous archetypes of
men in the 21st century, por-
trayed
through
the
terrible
men Amanda dates. The self-
proclaimed happy vegan turns
“free-gan” as he starts rummag-
ing through garbage bins for
food, and the guy who says they
should get married after the first
date is, not surprisingly, crazy.
But, though the tortured film
enthusiast who enjoys watching
“Schindler’s List” to wind down
warrants a chuckle, “Shitty Boy-
friends” is just not memorable.
With entertainment powerhous-
es like Kudrow and Bucatinsky
as producers, the show carries a
burden of expectation for side-
splitting comical punches left
and right, instead of awkward
cringe-worthy scenarios.
Refinery29’s content focuses
on fashion and lifestyle, and the
series is another outlet to show-
case quirky style through the
costumes. Sporting loud prints
and colors, the characters’ ward-
robe tells a story of its own. In
this respect, “Shitty Boyfriends”
naturally fits into the site. But
ultimately, it’s clear that the web
series is not destined to become
the Internet’s next hit-sensa-
tion. The episodes may tempo-
rarily cheer you up after a lousy
date, but they won’t be enough
to keep you from drowning your
sorrows in ice cream.
B
Shitty
Boyfriends
Available online
at Refinery29
By DREW MARON
Daily Arts Writer
“Flesh and Bone” is the new
limited series from Starz about
the gritty underbelly of the New
York City bal-
let. If that sen-
tence
makes
you giggle a
bit because it
has both the
words “ballet”
and
“gritty”
in it, well, that
seems to kind
of be the point.
The
series
comes from the
mind of Moira Walley-Beckett,
the master behind some of the
best episodes in “Breaking Bad,”
including the nerve-shattering
“Ozymandias.” Like her previous
series, “Flesh and Bone” seeks to
destroy the disparity between
the sacred and of the profane.
Many have already grown skep-
tical about the show, going so far
as to compare it to the reviled
“Showgirls.” Yet, while the series
does fill the screen with beauti-
ful people engaged in exploitative
and overly-sexualized activities,
“Flesh and Bone” seems use tropes
of premium-cable dramas to say
something not only relevant to the
world it creates, but to the greater
landscape — and intersections
between — contemporary art and
entertainment.
The show follows Claire (Sarah
Hay, “Black Swan”) as she runs
away from her troubled home in
Pittsburgh to become a ballerina
in the prestigious American Bal-
let Company. The leader of the
company is Paul (Ben Daniels,
“Locke”), a sociopathic artistic
director who believes his dancers
are his property. Though many
might compare the character to
Vincent
Cassel’s
sex-obsessed
director from “Black Swan,” Dan-
iels seems more concerned with
maintaining his power rather than
just sleeping with his dancers.
Daniels is an intimidating force
in the pilot, even if the character
might be one we’ve seen else-
where, whether in “Black Swan”
or “Whiplash.” Unfortunately, it’s
a character whose reality never
stretches beyond the veil of believ-
ability. There really are people out
there — whether in film, music,
theatre or journalism — who do
sink this low, while relishing their
unchecked authority over those
who are vulnerable.
With the same gothic sensi-
bility Walley-Beckett brought to
“Breaking Bad,” the repressively
polite world of ballet is ironically
juxtaposed with the sordid under-
belly of exotic dancing. This aspect
of “Flesh and Bone” — along with
its pervasive use of nudity and
sexuality — might draw the series
its most criticism. Yet what sepa-
rates “Flesh and Bone” from other
premium-cable dramas is that the
nudity has a purpose connected
to the overarching themes of the
show. “Flesh and Bone” is very
much about the male gaze and
the physical, emotional and psy-
chological punishment it inflicts
on those caught in its sight. In
his world, director Paul is god,
and all must shape themselves
according to his vision.
In a manner, the show feels
like an apt companion piece
to the Cinemax original series
“The Knick,” giving us the sordid
details allowed by premium cable
— whether that be the gore in
“The Knick” or the sex in “Flesh
and Bone” — but just in a subver-
sive context.
The ballet, in a fashion, can
be looked at like premium-
cable, itself: an environment in
which the wealthy and power-
ful indulge their baser instincts
under the guise of sophisticated
cultural engagement. After all,
premium cable might have given
the world “The Sopranos” and
“The Wire,” but it’s also been the
home of “Max After Dark.”
Whether
or
not,
Walley-
Beckett is intentionally playing
around with premium cable’s
reputation for both cutting-edge
art and deliberate exploitation
remains to be seen, as the show
has yet to achieve the same
nuance as “Masters of Sex.”
However, Walley-Beckett suc-
ceeds by providing the viewer
with an almost voyeuristic frame
in which to pull back the curtain
on a seemingly high-brow form
of art.
Neither the world of strippers
and gangsters nor that of the bal-
let is necessarily appealing to
Claire and, like “Breaking Bad,”
Walley-Beckett
intelligently
negates the notion of a high and
low path. In both worlds, the
characters are thrown to the
dogs; the only choice they really
have is which pit they’re more
comfortable being devoured in.
There are many who have
already criticized the show, and
not without reason. Some of its
characters become cliché (the
dominating dance teacher, the
street smart fellow dancer, the
prudish main character); however,
in the hands of Walley-Beckett
and director David Michod (“Ani-
mal Kingdom”), the pilot manages
to transcend its lesser qualities to
deliver a perverse, entertaining
hour of television, and hopefully
only the first entry in Walley-Beck-
ett’s oeuvre of original dramas.
B
Flesh and
Bone
Series Premiere
Sundays at 8 p.m.
Starz
C+
Spectre
MGM and Colum-
bia Pictures
Rave and
Quality 16
TV REVIEW
REFINERY29
Come on, gals. The headline wasn’t that bad!
TV REVIEW
‘Flesh’ has potential
STARZ
Maybe it will be as good as “Breaking Bad” some day.
MGM AND COLUMBIA PICTURES
“Fewer hop-ons than my last car.”
FILM NOTEBOOK
Crowdfunded ‘Fury’
By ANA LUCENA
For The Daily
As an aspiring filmmaker, I
was excited when I saw friends
post on Facebook and Instagram
about an incredible short film
titled “Kung Fury” that is free
to watch on YouTube. Since I
don’t particularly like kung fu
films more than any other genre,
I was hesitant to believe the
hype at first. But its wild success
inspired me, not only because
you can finally reach a wider
audience to appreciate your
work, but also because it shows
that anyone who believes in
their craft finally has a platform
where they can make it big.
“Kung Fury” is a brilliant
homage to the cinema of the
1980s — especially kung fu and
cop films — and illustrates the
maximum potential filmmakers
have in the digital age. The proj-
ect was crowdfunded through
Kickstarter and raised more
than $600,000 in funds, which,
while short of the $1 million
needed for a feature-length film,
exceeded the $200,000 origi-
nally asked for. This garnered
the short film a lot of atten-
tion, including this year’s Lovie
Internet Video Person of the
Year Award for director David
Sandberg for his spectacular use
of netizens’s support in getting
his short film completed and
released on YouTube and Netf-
lix for free. This is in addition to
the positive reviews critics gave
“Kung Fury.” The way the proj-
ect was funded is a stark change
from the difficult, traditional way
to fund films, which changed my
view of the profession after won-
dering how I would solve such a
problem.
My biggest concern in becom-
ing a filmmaker is funding.
Patiently infiltrating Hollywood
over several years seems to be the
most common technique used,
but that means that I would have
to wait a long time before I could
quit my day job. You can’t pre-
dict what the public will enjoy,
which leads to producers play-
ing it safe when they decide what
projects to pursue. This difficulty
to finance films has led to main-
stream cinema producing the
same old movies that follow the
same old tropes no matter how
devoid of originality or creativ-
ity or taste they are (I’m looking
at you, Michael Bay!). This makes
sense, considering film produc-
tion is an expensive and con-
suming effort. After writing and
rewriting your script, you have to
gather actors, props and people
who know how to handle camer-
as, lights, costumes and makeup
before you can even begin to edit
and add special effects. Funding
a film the way Sandberg did was
unimaginable before the wide-
spread use of the Internet.
A case in point is the 1994
classic
“Clerks”
by
director,
screenwriter and producer Kevin
Smith. The philosophical com-
edy was solely funded by Smith,
including maxing out multiple
credit cards and dipping into
his college fund. Even then, he
was forced to film at the conve-
nience store he worked at when
it was closed, and had to get his
family and friends to act in the
movie in order for his budget to
make ends meet. Fortunately for
him, Smith’s deep investment
in his craft paid off, winning
several awards at the Sundance
Screen Festival and the Cannes
Film Festival and leading to the
creation of the “View Askewni-
verse” franchise. Yet, Smith’s
experience remains a rare one.
The same can’t be said by all film-
makers struggling to get their
vision seen.
Though “Kung Fury” ’s suc-
cess from crowdfunding doesn’t
change the fact that making it
big in the film industry is easier
said than done, I expect that
more people will be able to share
their cinematic art this way and
improve entertainment for all.
And if this pushes movie studios
to compete with the web’s access
to such raw talent, and in turn
makes them raise the standard of
today’s mainstream movies, I’m
all for it.