Film Review: Eddie The Eagle

Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards was a British ski jumper in the late 1980s who became famous for representing Britain in the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics.  He came a resounding last and as a result became a media celebrity, the traditional underdog, complete with thick spectacles and a jutting chin.  This is a film inspired by that story, sold as a light-hearted story of a determined young man, a feel-good movie.

To a certain extent the film succeeds.  There are moments that make you smile and laugh out loud and plenty of scenes that make you feel for Eddie in his struggle to achieve his dream.  The ending undeniably lifts the viewer up, despite the fact that however soaring the final jumps seem to be, they were still extremely poor when considering the Olympic standard.   But there is something unnerving about Eddie.  From a young age all he ever wanted to be was an Olympian.  The opening section of the film shows him in the alleyway behind his house, attempting to hurdle, long jump and throw javelins (long sticks).  Each effort ends in failure - and a broken pair of glasses.  Persuaded to give up his dream, he follows in his father's footsteps and trains as a plasterer, until he realises that winter sports may prove an easier way to becoming an Olympian.  He misses out on representing Britain in downhill skiing and after another period of plastering, finally turns to ski jumping, realising there are no competitors and no entry requirements.  Unfortunately the British Olympic Committee decided there should be, imposed a minimum distance of 60m. Eddie sets out on a quest to achieve the distance and his dream of becoming an Olympian.

And there lies the problem.  Eddie only wants to represent his country at the Olympics.  He doesn't care if it's at the Summer or Winter games and has no preference for a sport.  He is an individual, a loner, and one that seems to be a few slices short of a loaf.  He is anything but a team player and fails to grasp that concept throughout.  Yes he is determined to achieve his dream and at any cost, particularly to his working class mother and father.  He is also fearless, moving up the ski jump heights once he has managed the previous one without killing himself.  One perception of him could be that he was selfish and that certainly comes across in this film.

Helping him on his way is former American Olympic ski jumper Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman), a washed up, rebellious, alcoholic has-been.  Together the two form an unlikely partnership and achieve success in reaching the new qualifying standard to make Eddie an Olympian.  Despite Eddie's slightly selfish attitude, empathy is built through his self-determination.  He raises his own funds, works in the local ski jump bar and is the brunt of his competitors jokes.  Bullying is rampant, from the Olympic committee creating the minimum requirements, his father (after 20 odd years) having no more encouragement to give, to his own team at Calgary getting him drunk so he misses the opening ceremony.

The culmination of these events make the last jump so satisfying.  The Calgary crowd love him as the underdog, and he is portrayed as almost a mascot.  His fearlessness and perseverance means he attempts the 90m jump for the first time, in front of an enthusiastic crowd and a television audience of millions.  Overall, Eddie The Eagle is an enjoyable British film that leaves the viewer feeling uplifted in the knowledge that the underdog can win his own personal battles, and that it's the taking part that counts.

A Virtual Scrawl

On a side note, this film was directed by actor Dexter Flexter who starred in 1980s children's show Press Gang, about a kids run newspaper), and it was secretly exciting to see his former co-star Paul Reynolds in a cameo as a sleazy journalist.

Film Review - 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

10 Cloverfield Lane is an intense drama that covers a multitude of genres, including drama, thriller, comedy, horror and science fiction.  The film opens with a young woman, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) contemplating ending a relationship.  She then leaves her engagement ring and keys in the apartment and drives in solitude down long and winding country roads.  The music is loud and almost overbearing with little natural background noise and with no words spoken.  Her ringing cell phone and fiance’s voice are the first real sounds heard.  Michelle has run away after a minor argument (a sure indication of an abused childhood).  Shortly after, the sudden loud noise of a car crash shocks the audience out of their reverie of a broken relationship and Michelle wakes up, handcuffed and in a basement - a drip attached to her arm and a splint on her knee.

John Goodman plays the eerily menacing Howard who exudes an undercurrent of danger. He is first portrayed as a fruitcake conspiracy theorist and Michelle’s naturally suspicious nature means she disbelieves him.  She can only see him as dangerous and she uses that to her advantage during the first dinner with her, Howard and the other occupant, Emmett, and makes her first escape attempt.  A dramatic turn of events (which again make the audience jump) means she is proved wrong, forcing her to accept life in the bunker.  There is no conspiracy and validates the fact that Howard contracted Emmett to build the shelter and that Emmett ran there when the invasion commenced.

But normality does not last long and once again conspiracy theories loom large.  Vehicles are heard overhead and then the air filtration system breaks.  In true thriller style, Michelle has to crawl through the narrow air vents to reach the unit and restart it.  The claustrophobic tunnels leave the viewer waiting for the next shock moment which this time fails to arrive.  Instead Michelle discovers another clue is found that leads her and Emmett to suspect Howard again, and the pair formulate a plan to escape.  Suspicion and tension is created between characters, answers found and an equilibrium reached, until doubt surfaces again.  This pattern is repeated throughout with an intensity that continually builds, with confrontations and moments that make you jump, even though you suspect they are coming.

JJ Abrams has produced a rollercoaster of a ride, together with Dan Tratchenberg in his first outing as a feature film director.  The limited setting of the bunker and the cast of three work well to create an uneasy atmosphere and one of fairly constant suspicion, but also with a healthy dose of humour.  Mary Elizabeth Winstead shines as the young woman who does not know who or what to believe, and in the last ten-fifteen minutes articulates this (as does the audience at this point), with a very apt swear word.  The conclusion of the film yet again has a twist and a change of genre.  Whether this continues to engage the audience or not, the tight acting and directing will not disappoint.

What did you think of the film?

A Virtual Scrawl

Film Review - Bridge of Spies

Bridge of Spies is a Cold War drama set in the early 1960s and is based on a true story.  Insurance lawyer Jim Donovan is asked to defend Rudolf Abel, a foreigner who has been arrested as a spy and is about to go on trial.  The Americans want to be seen giving Rudolf a fair trial, although a less than guilty verdict from the jury is not acceptable.  Jim’s initial reluctance is overcome as he meets Rudolf and works as any good defence lawyer should; examining the evidence, challenging the search warrant, and eventually reasoning with the Judge to negotiate life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty.  In a parallel story, US Airman Francis Gary Powers, is shot down and captured whilst flying spy missions for the CIA.  He is interrogated by the Russians and the two narratives intertwine as Jim is sent to Berlin to negotiate a prisoner exchange; swapping the Russian spy Rudolf Abel, for American Powers.  But just to throw a spanner in the works, American Economics student Frederic Pryor, is arrested by the East Germans as a suspected spy, just as the Berlin wall is erected.  The Germans want in on the action and Jim has another American citizen’s life on his conscience.

Jim Donovan (Tom Hanks) is introduced as an extremely competent insurance lawyer.  He meets with his counterpart in a bar and demonstrates how well he can use words and semantics to prove that a motor crash insurance claim will not be negotiated further.  He is strong, insistent and humorous without being patronising.

Jim has been ‘selected’ by his law firm’s senior partners to defend a man who may or may not be a Russian spy.  It is a case in which he has no experience, one that may cause his family problems, and a case he has to lose.

Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) is an artist.  In the opening scenes, he is studying himself in a mirror, posing and pausing to continue painting a self portrait. The multiple images of the same man confirm that we are looking at a someone who is not as he first seems.  He is movements are slow and without fear – he is the epitome of boring.  The camera follows him as he leaves his apartment and catches an underground train; he is innocuous yet is followed by the FBI.  On a crowded platform, the FBI lose Rudolf, panicking in their search, only for him to emerge from the subway, literally bumping in to him on the steps.  Rudolf travels to the river where he sets up his easel and starts painting. He reaches under his bench and retrieves a small object.  Back at his apartment he carefully opens the coin to pull out a small fold of paper covered in numbers. The FBI raid that follows sees Rudolf bewildered yet still calm; he comes across as not quite grasping the situation.  It is clear that he is a spy but never once does he admit his guilt.

The character development and interaction between Jim and Rudolf is built up throughout and they have an unspoken respect for each other.  Jim is not interested in Rudolf’s guilt, although he is concerned about how passive he is, regularly asking if he’s worried, to which Rudolf responds “would it help if I was?”  These little interactions are peppered through the film and underline how stoic and loyal Rudolf is.  It also becomes a running joke, breaking the tension which increases as the film progresses.  Another running joke is the use of the main characters health.  Rudolf has a cold and is constantly wiping his nose.  Later when Jim travels to Germany to broker the deal with both the Russians and East Germans, he too develops a cold.  Even the Second Secretary of the Soviet Embassy, Ivan Schischkin has a red nose during the finale on the bridge.

America in the early 1960s is shown as a country fully immersed in the Cold War.  Jim is asked by the CIA to break the client/lawyer privilege in the interests of national security, and there are repercussions for his family, when their house comes under gun fire.  Neither events deter Jim from his designated role.  But despite this, there is nostalgia of the good old days of the Cold War; US versus Russia and East versus West.  The nostalgia morphs in to propaganda as the US treat their prisoner with much more respect and humanity that the Russians, who torture theirs.

Many scenes adopt the visual look of German expressionism and film noir.  There is an intense use of light and dark, providing sharp contrast with characters moving from one to the other.  Particularly noticeable is the transition from the darkness of the bridge in Germany to the light warmth of New York when Jim Donovan arrives home to his family.  There are other scenes where there is an unusual use of camera angles; scenes are shot from very low down and look up, giving a distorted perspective of a character.  With the ceiling in shot, the scenes become crowded and threatening.  There is also a very high proportion of shots with mirrors, windows, glasses and reflections, starting with the opening scene with Rudolf’s self portrait.  When Jim visits the home of Judge Byers, the Judge moves between three different mirrors to focus on his tie whilst Jim tries to persuade him to keep Rudolf alive.  On the surface he is not listening, however the following morning’s headlines confirm otherwise.  Not all characters are as they seem, with the exception of Jim Donovan; he is an American citizen who has been asked to negotiate during a prisoner exchange.  With others, there is duplicity; Abel’s wife and daughter, in a rather comic turn, Rudolf himself is a spy although he never admits his guilt (his identity is questionable – is a Russian spy with a Scottish accent.  Ivan Schischkin is another who does not reveal his true identity.  There are games played by all sides, and as the stakes increase with Jim in Germany, so does the tension.   Jim is a gambler, not willing to take no for an answer, and it is his determination, passion and negotiation skills that sees one Russian spy released in exchange for two Americans.

Despite the drama and heightened tension during the second half of the film, there are plenty of light moments which give the characters humanity and creates empathy, which also ensure the film is not too heavy.  Parallels and contrasts are drawn between the treatment of the captured US spy and the captured Soviet spy; the former was unable to follow the strict CIA orders to commit suicide in case of capture, which makes the audience wonder how much he may have revealed under torture.  The loyalty shown by the stoic Rudolf Abel is confirmation that he would never tell – something the Russians are clearly not so sure of, when he is ushered to the back seat of the waiting car on the bridge.

A Bridge of Spies is an entertaining yet nostalgic visit to the days of the Cold War, where both sides knew the rules of war and engagement.  And although based on a true story, it is refreshing for a Hollywood film not to be centred around comic book superheroes, a remake or yet another sequel.  The film is visually stunning, with a narrative that cleverly brings together three strands with humour, drama and thrilling tension.  Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by the Cohen brothers and Matt Charman, and brought to life with the performances of Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance et al.  Oscars will be won.

avirtualscrawl.wordpress.com