Change Your Image
prrffft
Reviews
The Daisy Chain (2008)
Q: Do you believe in fairies? A: No, I don't.
The above Q and A took place after last night's debut screening at the Raindance film festival in London, an abrupt exchange between an audience member and the film's director, Aisling Walsh. And frankly, for me, her disbelief is the problem. For if she doesn't believe, how can she expect us to?
(I have not included spoilers for the film's ending; I only tell the basic set up.)
The Daisy Chain is set in a remote corner of Ireland, but even here the locals (bar your one token nut who nobody's ever going to listen to) do not believe in fairies anymore. Nonetheless, living amongst them is a 'fairy changeling', an autistic 10-year old Daisy who, with no more reason than that of a petulant child, is using her supernatural powers to kill off anyone who would get in the way of her mission to find someone to play with. Schoolteacher (Stephen MacIntosh) returns to his hometown with his heavily pregnant wife Martha (played by a heavily pregnant Samantha Morton); they are escaping from London, where their first child died aged only 3 weeks. Very soon Daisy's little brother and parents die in mysterious accidents and Martha, against her husband's escalating alarm, is stepping in as foster mum. If you think you know where this is all heading by now, you're probably right.
Comparisons with The Omen are inevitable. Apart from the setting and substituting a fairy-changeling for the Devil, this is basically a copy, with pretty much the same clichéd twists and psychological 'thrills'. The difference is in the level of belief. OK, so The Omen was made in the Dark Ages (1976) when many people still at least half-believed in the Devil. Today nobody does. But however silly the story, every highly-researched detail of The Omen carries utter conviction in its pompous, claustrophobic self so that even today, the viewer is still compelled to suspend disbelief and take that ride.
The Daisy Chain clearly lacks belief in itself (or much apparent research) as is evident from unnecessarily sloppy plotting, and from supporting characters and subplot strands that insubstantially manifest out of nowhere and go nowhere. Ironically, Ms Walsh (the director) seems to have lost sight of all this as a result of herself being mesmerised by the beguiling face of promising newcomer Mhairi Anderson (who plays Daisy), just as Martha in the film falls helplessly under Daisy's spell. Mhairi's perfectly fairy/urchin-like face and unsettling stare dominates the film but, as effective as she is, this cannot make up for the lack of scripted thrills. I sensed that much of the audience's enthusiasm afterwards was projected toward Mhairi's presence. Certainly, those around me with stretching necks looked eager and relieved to confirm that Mhairi is actually a sweetly charming and not-at-all evil young lady. Phew!
The post-viewing Q and A session held one other surprise that possibly explains some of these problems but prompts other questions. Watching the film, it was immediately apparent that Samantha Morton (whose films I usually always love) was heavily pregnant during the making of the film. Was Samantha boldly (and unsuperstitiously) taking method acting a step beyond? No. It turns out that in the original script Martha was NOT pregnant, and that the script was re-written at a very late stage to embrace this casting coup. This revelation left me reeling. For, as the film now stands, Martha's pregnancy is absolutely central and essential to the entire story. In fact, without it, there would be nothing left but Daisy's face.
And I still don't get why it's called The Daisy Chain.
Braveheart (1995)
I found this DVD in the library classed under non-fiction....
.....finally I watched Braveheart for the first time.
Is it true that the Scots watch this each year on the day Scottish parliament opens? I bet it's effective in getting them baying for English blood. Gibson has a gift for directing bloody action. But why make a historical film that is so inaccurate?
I'm no historian, but I do recall a little history from school books. Enough to know that Wallace didn't live in a thatched hut. That Edward II was manly and not a limp-wristed girl; his favourite hobby -- apart from hanging out with Piers -- was rowing.....and swimming and shoeing horses. And Wallace did not father Queen Isabella's child, the future king of England, because he did not ever meet her. (Isabella was in France, about 13 when Wallace died, and Edward II only married her 2-3 years after Wallace's death, and after Edward I's death.) Sorry for the spoiler.
Do these 'errors' in historical films matter? Some will say they don't, that film is just for entertainment and legend. But many people who watch films never voluntarily read a book. These films replace history books. They become the common, accepted knowledge. Isn't this dangerous?
I know a non-reader who is obsessed about popular history (i.e. he mainly likes the bits where some guy is slaughtering some other guy). All his knowledge is taken from films and he believes he speaks with ultimate authority, even when he announces that Wallace was very likely father to England's royalty.. I've seen him a few times locking horns with someone who knows his stuff, and it's just embarrassing. And sad. For why should he suspect that Mel is fiddling with the facts to this extent?
Innocence (2004)
dull dull dull
dull dull dull dull dull. And not because I didn't give enough attention, not because it's too intellectual and the metaphor went over my head, not because I have a problem with endless shots up young girls' legs. Just because it's dull. The girls in this film are simply not actors and the director is not equipped to bring out any truth in them, and so they completely fail to engage. With so little plot you really need to feel involved, but nothing here is emotionally believable. Even a paedophile (of course I'm guessing here) would be bored.
You can disregard this second paragraph as I'm only continuing to type because this dumb IMDb system insists that you submit at least ten lines. How do you measure a line? I mean, on who's computer? I'm on a widescreen Mac for gods sake. I'd never be able to fill up ten lines on this awful joke of a film. And I don't appreciate IMDb telling me I've misspelled 'paedophile" because I'm British and that is the way we spell -- I was the best speller in my school so shut up.