Home Posts filed under >Peter Morgan
In “Hereafter,” three stories of mortality are told. The first one we learn concerns Marie (Cecile de France), a journalist on vacation in Indonesia. The movie has barely begun when she is swept up in a violent tsunami, one that fulfills the bloodless requirement for PG-13, but is otherwise absolutely harrowing. It’s impossible to understand what really happened during the real-life events depicted in the film, but even with computer generated effects, there is a unsettling universal sensation this sequence captures. You share in the fear that Marie, a media figure and woman of privilege, is carrying with her: these are my final moments. I will be powerless to prevent them.
As her lifeless body floats to the top of a submerged building, her body stops breathing, but her mind races. Something - whether it be her subconscious, her spirit, her mind - is glimpsing shadowed figures, conversations in progress, a peek into an astral plane. She emerges from this stupor, triumphant against death, but she’s brought something back with her. This is not an M. Night Shyamalan film, so it certainly isn’t ghosts. But that may depend on your definition of “ghosts.”
The next section concerns George (Matt Damon), a somber steel worker in San Francisco running from his past. With the skill to pry into people’s thoughts, his mind provides a direct line to recently-deceased loved ones. But after years of prying unpleasant secrets from the dead to shock the living, he’s come to consider this ability a disease and an albatross. That doesn’t stop his opportunistic brother from coming by with “very special clients” who want to talk to the dead.
In pursuit of a regular life, he’s joining the singles’ scene, applying for a cooking class in the city. But every touch brings someone’s late partners, siblings, and friends to the forefront. George is, by all accounts, a good man, fair and polite, and even willing to humor his brother, whose entrepreneurial interests in regard to George’s ability is couched in false altruism and hollow guilt. When he develops feelings for a vivacious cooking class partner, he takes great pains to hide his very peculiar baggage, though his reserved body language suggests physical intimacy greatly eludes him, and the prospect of such closeness with her is a rare exciting prospect in his colorless life.
The final portion of this triptych follows a timid English schoolboy who depends on his active twin brother. The older by twelve minutes, Jason is the risk-taker who uses charisma and aggression to make life easier for the two. This ends up being necessary with mum arriving home after hours drenched in alcohol, a practice we are to assume is frequent. When Jason is felled by a car accident, younger brother Marcus becomes the man of the household. But his life is fractured - he has no one to help with homework, no one to turn out the light at night and, inevitably, no one to make Mum more capable to discerning eyes. Soon, he’s taken away for foster care, but further loss only cements the need for the connection with his brother, which he believes is only temporarily frayed
Screenwriter Peter Morgan and director Clint Eastwood aren’t making a film about the intangible. Instead, it’s a picture about what people do when they find themselves developing a connection with an outside force. It’s an oddly supernatural detour for Eastwood, a filmmaker with an appreciation for straightforward onscreen action and intimate melodramas, but in a literal sense, the characters are all reacting to the connection with the afterlife in the great tradition of all MacGuffins - Marie is getting it, George doesn’t want it, and Marcus needs it.
Eastwood’s film relies on a number of agreements an audience needs to make before indulging “Hereafter.” First of all, psychics are real. Some are a sham, as Marcus soon learns when he seeks a medium to speak to his brother, but occasionally, there’s one like Matt Damon, a good guy who takes his work extremely seriously. Because of this, the afterlife is also real, an ethereal place where our spirits commiserate after death. A few special effects sequences don’t exactly turn this into an intriguing visual concept (“X-Men” fans will be reminded of Cerebro), but it capably renders the non-judgmental next destination for all of us.
As the story evolves, Marie sees the same murky hereafter that George does, but its uncertain how she’s affected by it. This new connection with ghosts shakes her, but her in-articulation combined with her personal and professional details - her boyfriend/boss gives her a foreboding “vacation time” - keeps the audience at a distance. She pools her resources into a new project, but remains afflicted by what she encountered upon resurrection, instead penning an account of what lies beyond. This book remains the best opportunity for the audience to understand what she’s going through, but we hear only snippets taken out of context, and its entirely unclear what epiphany she is meant to come to. There’s no tension regarding her easygoing boyfriend of indeterminate seriousness, and she has the type of job that allows for an extravagant apartment with the option of weeks off at a time, so what’s at stake remains a mystery.
Young Marcus’s storyline is more than a bit stronger, the boy grasping at straws regarding the afterlife, a concept he’s never considered. Like each character, he is in the process of finding his identity, but he cannot move forward unless he comes to terms with the loss of his brother. Gradually, this becomes a fascination with George, who inexplicably left his own website up despite fleeing from his profession. George has met someone special, and unlike other people at his station in life, he seeks not marriage, or longtime friends, just a connection. But is he going to be able to connect with this girl without his second sight in the way?
There’s an element that sabotages each story. In Marie’s narrative, Eastwood can’t seem to get viewers into her headspace, so an internal conflict is rendered opaque. With Marcus, his is a story of immediacy, but the cross-cutting format limits the emotional resonance of his journey, so dramatic changes - his mother ending up in a clinic - aren’t given the proper gravity. And George’s courtship can only end badly, since his paramour is played by Bryce Dallas Howard, an actress of no conviction who appears willfully dense whenever carrying a serious conversation. With her bubbly head bobbing and manner of phrasing statements as questions, she comes across as a dolt, and its unclear what George wants with her.
Which isn’t to say “Hereafter” isn’t a film of notable achievements. As per producers Steven Spielberg and Frank Marshall, the opening tsunami is a breathless wonder, edited for maximum unease and terror, so much so it’s a disappointment when it merely serves as a catalyst for a rich journalist to discover she’s a writer. Damon is quite good in a subdued role where his body language and squished face are necessary to reflect a young man dealing with pain and suffering beyond his years, yet another in a career of pleasant surprises from the Oscar winning screenwriter. And as Marcus, Frankie McLaren has the film’s most affecting moment, in which he makes a fulfilling spiritual connection, one that he doesn’t realize is severed by a lie. It may be what Clint and company are trying to tell us: a little B.S. goes a long way. [C+]
One of the more surprising, and yet in hindsight somewhat obvious, casting decisions of the year was the announcement a month or two ago that Sacha Baron Cohen would play the late Queen frontman Freddie Mercury in a biopic of the star, to be written by Oscar-winning writer Peter Morgan, and produced by Graham King ("The Town," "The Departed"). Morgan's a busy bee at the moment, with Fernando Meirelles prepping his script "360," the thriller "Riptide" in development at Summit, possibly with Brad Pitt and Shia LaBoeuf circling, and now the MGM situation is clearing up, he should eventually get around to penning Sam Mendes' Bond movie. But first up is Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter," which hits theaters Friday, as a result of which Morgan spoke to Katey Rich at Cinema Blend (via Filmonic), and spilled a couple of details on the Mercury project.
Despite Morgan's reputation for building scripts around true-life figures like Tony Blair and David Frost, the project appears to have been conceived by Baron Cohen himself — Morgan relates that "Sacha was the one who asked me to write it. He was the guy who rang me up." He also confirms reports that the script will focus more on the earlier years of Queen, leading up to the band's 1985 Live Aid concert, rather than the singer's eventual death, saying "I didn't want to write an AIDS movie, to be honest with you. And then, I just looked at the period — it's sort of where he rejects [the other members of Queen] and comes back to them. It's sort of like a family movie. It's sort of like I hate my family, I want to be independent, and then I come back."
There's certainly plenty of drama in this period of the band's life — it seems likely that the narrative will include the international outcry after the band broke an anti-apartheid boycott and played gigs in South Africa, before rescuing their reputation at Live Aid, a performance frequently voted as among the all-time greats. And despite the band's involvement in the project (the surviving members will all receive producing credits), Morgan promises it won't be a whitewash, telling Rich "I'm not sure how much they'll like what I write. I think they'll recognize the truth in it, but it's a series of painful memories for them. I'm essentially writing about the most painful time in the band's history."
We're theoretically fans of Morgan's writing (some of his best stuff is less-well-known, like "Longford" or "The Damned United"), but there's a sense now that he may be a little thinly stretched — "The Special Relationship" was easily the weakest of the Blair trilogy, and the word on "Hereafter" isn't great. But even so, we'll be excited for this one when it goes before cameras sometime next year. Unless it somehow leads to a film version of the stage musical abomination "We Will Rock You"...
"Hatchet II" had the potential to mark a new era of cinema when the slasher sequel, which failed to gain an R Rating from the MPAA, was picked up for limited release by AMC. But, after just days on release, it was unexpectedly pulled, without AMC expressing any meaningful explanation as to why they made the decision. Adam Green, director of both "Hatchet" releases has reacted to the decision, issuing a statement of his own.
“I first heard of Toronto and Montreal pulling the film via Canadian fans on Twitter on Saturday morning saying that the movie was pulled without reason and they wanted to know where it went. If you look at my twitter you'll see that I mentioned 'Hearing the film has been pulled from Montreal and Toronto- but don't hate the theaters, they tried.' Which leads me to believe that after Friday the movie was yes, gone. Calling the theaters can confirm that.
All signs would point to AMC being unhappy with how vocal I was about the MPAA and not wanting to deal with the controversy -- which if the case, is their given right. Had the film grossed millions, maybe it would be a different story with them, but given the size of our release and the nature of what this is, all we ever could have hoped for was a few grand per screen in a realistic scenario.”
The confusion felt by fans attempting to watch a screening at AMC is understandable, considering that Green had previously said to Entertainment Weekly that AMC had volunteered to show the unrated cut. "It turns out the people who make the decisions at AMC were big fans of the original "Hatchet" and loved the sequel," the director revealed."I think the quote was that they thought it was 'the best slasher sequel they'd ever seen'. "
Yet, AMC's decision to put an unrated film in cinemas was controversial. This has not happened for a film in this genre in a quarter of a century and so the announcement coincided with a wave of public criticism. Importantly, this decision presumably did not escape the attention of the MPAA. While Green has come out in support of the AMC chain itself, he has never pulled his punches when it comes to criticism towards the MPAA. This accumulated in a tasty outburst towards the ‘evil’ MPAA about their handling of not only "Hatchet II" but also the original "Hatchet." But, Green’s outbursts may have backfired and inadvertently set the MPAA's hand in motion to apply the pressure to get this film pulled so that their authority as regulator was reaffirmed.
A spokesperson for AMC has come out on the defensive on this issue. Commenting on the chain's decision, it was confirmed that "Hatchet II" has been removed from all cinemas and was followed by a written statement that reads: "At AMC theatres, we review all films in all of our theaters every week and then make our business decisions based on their performance."
But, just as Green stated, given the size of the release what did they expect? They chose to pick up an unrated slasher film with a limited release; did they expect comparative box-office receipts to say, the "Saw" franchise, which is over-exposed and given full release? No matter how defensive Green is to AMC, It appears a near-perfect marketing coup by the chain; having gained exposure and notoriety, they pulled the film, blaming the film's performance that never had a chance of succeeding. An easy out if there ever was one.
The vagueness behind the film's withdrawal has not escaped the attention of Green, talking to Cinematical he said: "The sad truth of the matter is that no one at Dark Skies (the film’s distributor) has been able to tell me the exact reasons behind why the film was pulled... AMC's response to the press of 'we base our decisions on performance' does not add up given that we know of at least two theaters that had pulled the film after just 24 hours and given the grand scheme of things, other genre titles performed worse per screen ("Chain Letter") even though they had bigger budgets and traditional spends on marketing campaigns as opposed to ours."
To conclude, Green has insisted that it is highly doubtful that "Hatchet II" will return to the big screen, in its current state or in an edited state that meets the MPAA regulations. However, he did have a positive note to fans. "The good thing is that the biggest audience for this movie, because it was for the first one, is going to be with on demand and DVD," Green says. "I know that Dark Skies, in light of it being pulled prematurely, is going to do everything they can to get it to the fans as fast as they can." -- Matt Richardson
In “Hereafter,” three stories of mortality are told. The first one we learn concerns Marie (Cecile de France), a journalist on vacation in Indonesia. The movie has barely begun when she is swept up in a violent tsunami, one that fulfills the bloodless requirement for PG-13, but is otherwise absolutely harrowing. It’s impossible to understand what really happened during the real-life events depicted in the film, but even with computer generated effects, there is a unsettling universal sensation this sequence captures. You share in the fear that Marie, a media figure and woman of privilege, is carrying with her: these are my final moments. I will be powerless to prevent them.
As her lifeless body floats to the top of a submerged building, her body stops breathing, but her mind races. Something - whether it be her subconscious, her spirit, her mind - is glimpsing shadowed figures, conversations in progress, a peek into an astral plane. She emerges from this stupor, triumphant against death, but she’s brought something back with her. This is not an M. Night Shyamalan film, so it certainly isn’t ghosts. But that may depend on your definition of “ghosts.”
In pursuit of a regular life, he’s joining the singles’ scene, applying for a cooking class in the city. But every touch brings someone’s late partners, siblings, and friends to the forefront. George is, by all accounts, a good man, fair and polite, and even willing to humor his brother, whose entrepreneurial interests in regard to George’s ability is couched in false altruism and hollow guilt. When he develops feelings for a vivacious cooking class partner, he takes great pains to hide his very peculiar baggage, though his reserved body language suggests physical intimacy greatly eludes him, and the prospect of such closeness with her is a rare exciting prospect in his colorless life.
Screenwriter Peter Morgan and director Clint Eastwood aren’t making a film about the intangible. Instead, it’s a picture about what people do when they find themselves developing a connection with an outside force. It’s an oddly supernatural detour for Eastwood, a filmmaker with an appreciation for straightforward onscreen action and intimate melodramas, but in a literal sense, the characters are all reacting to the connection with the afterlife in the great tradition of all MacGuffins - Marie is getting it, George doesn’t want it, and Marcus needs it.
As the story evolves, Marie sees the same murky hereafter that George does, but its uncertain how she’s affected by it. This new connection with ghosts shakes her, but her in-articulation combined with her personal and professional details - her boyfriend/boss gives her a foreboding “vacation time” - keeps the audience at a distance. She pools her resources into a new project, but remains afflicted by what she encountered upon resurrection, instead penning an account of what lies beyond. This book remains the best opportunity for the audience to understand what she’s going through, but we hear only snippets taken out of context, and its entirely unclear what epiphany she is meant to come to. There’s no tension regarding her easygoing boyfriend of indeterminate seriousness, and she has the type of job that allows for an extravagant apartment with the option of weeks off at a time, so what’s at stake remains a mystery.
Young Marcus’s storyline is more than a bit stronger, the boy grasping at straws regarding the afterlife, a concept he’s never considered. Like each character, he is in the process of finding his identity, but he cannot move forward unless he comes to terms with the loss of his brother. Gradually, this becomes a fascination with George, who inexplicably left his own website up despite fleeing from his profession. George has met someone special, and unlike other people at his station in life, he seeks not marriage, or longtime friends, just a connection. But is he going to be able to connect with this girl without his second sight in the way?
Which isn’t to say “Hereafter” isn’t a film of notable achievements. As per producers Steven Spielberg and Frank Marshall, the opening tsunami is a breathless wonder, edited for maximum unease and terror, so much so it’s a disappointment when it merely serves as a catalyst for a rich journalist to discover she’s a writer. Damon is quite good in a subdued role where his body language and squished face are necessary to reflect a young man dealing with pain and suffering beyond his years, yet another in a career of pleasant surprises from the Oscar winning screenwriter. And as Marcus, Frankie McLaren has the film’s most affecting moment, in which he makes a fulfilling spiritual connection, one that he doesn’t realize is severed by a lie. It may be what Clint and company are trying to tell us: a little B.S. goes a long way. [C+]
