Tron: Legacy (2010)

The aesthetic quality of 'Tron: Legacy' is astounding. A quick Google search will reveal a plethora of critics gushing over the revolutionary special effects and the superb electronic soundtrack by 'Daft Punk'. I agree with them and so, rather than repeat these views, I will discuss one of the major criticisms of the film in closer detail: that is, the storyline.

Disney was faced with an interesting conflict when developing 'Tron: Legacy'. The idea of a world inside a computer is inherently a complex one, implying that the film would present unfamiliar and alien situations that would demand more attention then the average blockbuster film. This would normally indicate a smaller-budget film that would devote itself directly to the existing fanbase. However, the budget for the film and merchandising push that it has subsequently received means that the film must be accessible to the masses. It seems that Disney have decided to revitalise the brand for everyone, not just the existing fans. So the big question was: how could Disney take a niche film concept and make it into a family-friendly blockbuster, whilst still providing enough meat to satisfy the existing fanbase who have waited twenty-eight years for a sequel? Some critics have argued that Disney clearly couldn't, as evidenced by the simple storyline. However, this way of thinking strikes me as disingenuous. The film is an introduction to the franchise for many and should be treated as such.

The characters in the storyline, by and large, are simple archetypes. Garrett Hedlund plays Sam Flynn, the lost boy who finds his father and becomes a hero. Hedlund plays the part quite straight: he is sarcastic and headstrong, but is interesting to watch when he allows the wonder of the concept to influence his performance. His father, Kevin Flynn, is played by Jeff Bridges. When Bridges was in the original 'Tron', his character was much younger. He was loud, brash and intelligent. In 'Tron: Legacy' there is a clever duality in Bridges' performance. Due to the events in the film, his character has become a religious figure, and as such he has grown into the role in a somewhat lopsided manner due to the lack of human interaction during his time in the computer. However, after being reunited with his son, certain lines and deliveries seem like they are ripped right out of the original film, demonstrating that the original character is still alive and well in Bridges' mind. The biggest surprise to me was Olivia Wilde, who played Quorra. Her character is a program who has spent most of her existence with Kevin Flynn and has developed a very unique personality. Wilde manages to portray her as both incredibly intelligent and sweetly naive. She has managed to take a character who was a potentially cold, boring 'damsel in distress' and make her more endearing then the main character.

The storyline itself is relatively simple. Sam Flynn's father, Kevin, disappeared when he was a boy. After following a lead, Sam finds himself unwittingly inside his father's old computer system. He discovers his father has been trapped in the computer the whole time and they attempt to escape together. The key to this is that the story is simple to follow. There is a myriad of other ideas that are touched on during the film, all of which are fertile ground for further storytelling, such as the war inside the computer or the idea of self-evolving algorithms being the basis for the next step in human evolution. These alternate strands of the story are never really explored, which seems to have frustrated many critics who feel that the smarter elements of the film have been sidelined for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. The thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is that this film is a springboard for the franchise: there will be more stories told, but only if the film casts it's net wide enough to find the fanbase for it. For example, Disney has revealed that there is both a cartoon and a live-action TV series in the works for the franchise. By giving new viewers a more palatable introduction to the franchise, Disney has freed itself up to explore these other ideas through alternate means. Personally, I think they found be best possible compromise.

The King's Speech (2010)

I worked with an actor/director a couple of years ago who described “Shakespeare in Love” as an 'actor's movie'. He encouraged everyone to go and watch it again, looking out for little side-jokes and jibes at the profession that will only be noticed by those with training. At the time I thought that was a little pretentious, but on watching the film it became clear: everyone involved in “Shakespeare in Love” was in love with acting as a craft. The nature of the film gave them a perfect springboard for what amounted to a good-natured roasting of their livelihood. The reason I feel the need to describe this is that “The King's Speech” left me with the same impression.

The crux of the film rests on the interplay between the (soon-to-be)King George VI and his Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue. King George VI, affectionately known as 'Bertie' to his close friends and family, is played by Colin Firth. There is a tremendous sense of internal strength to his performance, as he manipulates the limitations of the character's speech impediment and transforms it into an endearing trait. Firth is known for his excellent vocal performances, so seeing him work with a character like this demonstrates his versatility and technique. Geoffrey Rush plays Lionel Logue, whose Australian nationality and expressive personality are the antithesis to the reserved, quiet nature of the king.

The script is written in such a way as to allow Firth and Rush simply to act, without the need for gimmicks or a wide selection of secondary characters. Watching Lionel leading Bertie out of his comfort zone with unusual vocal exercises is a delight, particularly when the audience is treated to an uncomfortable Bertie shouting out some truly filthy language. Whilst there are other notable performances in the film (particularly Helena Bonham-Carter, who plays Queen Elizabeth) it is the chemistry between Lionel and Bertie that the film hangs it's hat on, and rightly so.

The technical side of the film is fantastic, primarily because it never draws attention away from the actors. The director clearly had confidence in his troop because the normal pitfalls of period drama are refreshingly absent. Clothes and sets are all authentic, but never take centre stage. In fact, much of the film is set in tight corridors and bare rooms, such as Lionel's office. This is perhaps the main strength of the film: despite being a period drama, the script places emphasis on the people rather then the date. It is easy for the audience to empathise and relate to the characters because we are given access to their inner thoughts and anxieties, which are irrespective of the years within which the movie is set. Even when the film indulges in it's more glamorous areas, such as Wembley Stadium, it never is to the detriment of the dialogue. One joke seems to be a sly wink to this idea when, late in the film, Bertie becomes frustrated that Lionel is sitting in King Edward's Chair in Westminster Abbey before the coronation. Lionel, with a bemused look, tells him that “People have carved their names on it!” In a sentence, Rush takes all the pomp and glamour out of one of the most important artefacts in the world, situated in one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. As the camera stays steady on Rush's face in a close-up, the audience is made to realise that it is the characters in the film whom they are interested in and not the trappings that surround them.