Cool News
Capone's Art-House Round-Up with the RED RIDING TRILOGY, the doc THE ART OF THE STEAL, and THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF!!!
Hey, folks. Capone in Chicago here, with a couple of films that are making their way into art houses around America this week (maybe even taking up one whole screen at a multiplex near you). Enjoy…
RED RIDING TRILOGY
One of the most stirringly ambitious film projects in recent memory (based on the novel by David Peace) is this three-film crime drama from the UK, focusing on the horribly botched investigations surrounding the "Yorkshire Ripper" child murders of the 1970s and '80s. As much an exposé of police and political corruption in the region, the RED RIDING trilogy (with each film helmed by a different director) features many threads and characters that travel between the films, however, the films don't necessarily have to be seen in order, although I'd recommend that you watch them chronologically for maximum impact.
The 1974 segment from director Julian Jarrold (maker of the recent BRIDESHEAD REVISITED adaptation) centers on a newbie investigative journalist (Andrew Garfield from LIONS FOR LAMBS and THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS) who is the first to spot the connections between the murders and dirty dealings between the police department and a thuggish real estate developer, played by Sean Bean. Some of the UK's great working actors are featured in this segment (many of which go on to be in the other two), including Peter Mullan, David Morrissey, Rebecca Hall, and Eddie Marsan. Needless to say, since there are two more films, the journalist's investigation does not go well.
The 1980 section, directed by MAN ON WIRE's James Marsh, concerns a seasoned detective (Paddy Considine) brought in from Manchester to head up the seemingly unsolvable murders. Needless to say, his work sends him down a similar path that the journalist traveled six years earlier, and his being an outsider doesn't exactly help the situation. Among his theories is that a copycat of the original murderer may be at work in town, a theory that seems sound when a man is arrested in the case. The 1983 segment, from SHOPGIRL director Armund Tucker, is when all the corruption comes to a head and the truth is revealed. The detective played by Morrissey sees alarmed similarities between a new case and the Yorkshire Ripper cases from 10 years earlier, despite the fact that the now-condemned is in jail. Meanwhile, a local attorney (Mark Addy) takes up the case of the imprisoned, mentally challenged man, and in attempting to clear his client's name, he uncovers a world in which many believe it's better his possibly innocent client stays right where he is rather than have the truth come out.
The RED RIDING trilogy is quite simply going to knock your socks off, freak you out more than once, and captivate you. As much as the films center on a deviant killer of children, the stories are really about how the system set up to solve these crimes is rotten from the inside due to greed and a well orchestrated cover up that takes the place of justice. The films will deliver a proper and powerful stomping to your brain as you wrap your head around the many mysteries and implications of this tale (in many ways, you, too, will wish these crimes never get solved because of the damage it will do the community if they are). Now that your Oscar-related watching is done, this is an excellent way to dive head first into 2010 (even though these films opened in many countries and played the festival circuit last year).
THE ART OF THE STEAL
Welcome to the first great documentary of 2010, THE ART OF THE STEAL-- a film that will make you loathe the upper crust of Philadelphia society and become a fan of an art collection that you may never have known existed before watching this movie. Outside of the art world, the Barnes Foundation, located five miles outside of the City of Brotherly Love, may not have been that well known. And there was a very good reason for that. Its founder, the late Dr. Albert Barnes, hated with all his might people who treated art like something meant sit in the background of rich people's homes or in institutionalized art museums. Barnes' relatively modest museum housed what is considered by many to be the single great collection of Post-Impressionist and early Modern art in the world (the press notes say the museum housed 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos, 16 Modiglianis, and 7 Van Goghs, among others), but he displayed it not by artist or movement. Instead he arranged his art and furniture (recently collectively appraised at about $25 billion) to be aesthetically pleasing, and to be of maximum use to his real motive for having such an impressive collection--to be used for art education and not simply for mass public consumption.
Although Barnes' will was quite clear that the collection should never be moved, rented, split up, sold, or be open to the public beyond the building's very limited open hours, when he died in 1951, a slow and agonizing process began to make sure that his wishes were dismantled by the very people he despised more than any. But the people in power in Philadelphia, including those on the board of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (an institution Barnes considered an arch-enemy), politicians, and other members of the cultural elite, conspired over the decades to rip apart Barnes' very explicit instructions and wishes, but not without a fight.
The story of this collection is endlessly fascinating and will pull you in whether you're an art fan or not. The disregard by the courts and others to Barnes' will is brazen and infuriating, and it makes you wonder just how iron-clad any will might be if you have enough people with money opposing its instructions. There is sound evidence of outright conspiracy between the government and the Philadelphia Museum, a fact that didn't seem to matter to any lawmaker. At some point while watching THE ART OF THE STEAL, you may ask yourself "Is is really right that all of these great works of art be kept from the public to satisfy the personal hatred one man felt against the establishment?" And more than once, I remember thinking, "I'd like to see that collection, but I wouldn't be able to if Barnes' wishes were adhered to." But neither of those questions is really the point, nor do they matter. What happened (and continues to happen) with the Barnes Foundation goes to the heart of Legacy. Barnes could not have been more clear, and nearly everything that happened to his precious collection after he and those who he personally appointed to look out for it died, the real world crept in like a thief in the night and undid what he'd spent decades building and fortifying. Not only is this the first great doc of 2010, but like many great documentaries, THE ART OF THE STEAL will make you angry.
THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF
Here's an excellent example of great performances overcoming an overwrought, self-important screenplay (by Erin Dignam, loosely based on a short story by Pete Hamill) and heavy-handed direction from the UK's Udayan Prasad (MY SON THE FANATIC and countless British TV series). THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF is proof that I will watch William Hurt and/or Maria Bello is just about anything because I trust that even if the material is overly indulgent junk (this movie is not quite that bad), they will be good, perhaps even exceptional. So the question remains, how badly do you want to see these two fine actors work their magic? Are you willing to endure a whole lot of foolishness and not-so-great acting by the likes of Eddie Redmayne, an actor whose appeal I will never understand? Maybe the answer is Yes, but I'm not making that decision for you.
An interesting offshoot of the success of the TWILIGHT films is that years' old films that Kristen Stewart made before she became the stuff of 'tween legend. Last year, a little number called THE CAKE EATERS from 2007 saw the light of day in theaters and now THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF, which was made in 2008, is creeping onto a few screens. Set in post-Katrina Louisiana, the film is about Brett Hanson (Hurt)--a recently released convict after six years in for manslaughter. Not exactly sure where he's headed, he hitches a ride with Gordy (Redmayne), and they in turn pick up a sort-of teen runaway Martine (Stewart). Not a whole lot happens in this movie, but the three spend a lot of time talking, primarily about Brett's life before prison and his marriage to the lovely May (Bello). Nearly all of Bello's scenes are part of Brett's flashbacks, during which we see their courtship, marriage, and ugliness as Brett has convinced himself he's not worth loving or sticking around for.
Naturally on this road to nowhere, Gordy and Martine start to develop feelings for each other, which is about as appealing as, well, nothing nice. It probably goes without saying but I'm going to spit it out anyway that the scenes with Hurt and Bello are the strongest the film has to offer, and there aren't nearly enough of them. Why the filmmakers felt they needed to frame this run-of-the-mill story with all of this nonsense about the younger couple is beyond me. Stewart has nothing to be embarrassed about in this film. She's plays a white-trash princess as well as can, I suppose, but there's just nothing for her to say or do that amounts to anything resembling substance, especially when you compared her scenes with Redmayne to the ones with Hurt and Bello. I struggled to find things to enjoy in THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF, and after about the halfway point I simply gave up on the youngsters' storyline and counted the moments until the older couple showed those whippersnappers how it's done. You might have an easier time liking this feather-light production, but I felt like it was pushing me away as often as the more dramatic elements were keeping me curious. Not exactly a close call, but still a disappointment.
-- Capone
capone@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
...More well written reviews by the Cap One... will have to see Red Ridin if it ever comes on tv and i have literally nothin else to do... PS- if i ever become an aliased criminal, i hope my name will be cool...
-
The yorkshire ripper wasn't a child killer, he murdered prostitutes
-
I haven't actually seen Red Riding, so I'm guessing it's not exclusively about the Ripper murders - but the Yorkshire Ripper was so nicknamed because he was a serial killer targeting prostitutes (like Jack The ripper - geddit?!?). Not a child killer then. Unless in the films they originally thought the same guy was responsible for different crimes ..?
-
Just to back up stevebfd. I live in Yorkshire, I seem to know more about Peter Sutcliffe than you, Capone, and I haven't posted a review of three films based around him.
-
Apparently Red Riding does also reference the Moors child murder commited by Brady and Hindley, so it's possible Capone was just confused, by the two seperate cases.
-
The Moors murders are referenced, but not in any way that could be mistaken as being part of the plot.
I saw all 3 of the films when they were aired on Channel 4 a while back. Capone's review reads like the comments of someone who's read the back of the DVD and has heard it's fantastic. Which it is. But Capone, to make an error of that kind after having apparently watched the best part of 6 hours worth of film is an error of the slackest variety. The Ripper might only be a side story to the main topic of corruption and violence, but it's always clear what the Ripper did. And to whom. -
Have we stumbled on a conspiracy is capone or just lazy bastard?
-
Have we stumbled on a conspiracy or is Capone just lazy bastard?
-
I think it's possible that finale of the third movie and the whole subplot revolving around that might be why Capone interpreted the series in that way. Besides, the murder investigation is really going on in the background compared to corruption etc which the series focuses on.
-
...given how willingly confusing the last film in this trilogy is. The second film concentrates on the Yorkshire Ripper case, and actually features a fairly accurate scene where Peter Sutcliffe is interviewed by the police - the most glaring difference is that he refers to his wife by the name 'Mary' (I think) as opposed to her real name, Sonia. The victims, however, all have different names and - in most cases - background histories. However, in the third film David Morrissey's character sees a connection not with the Ripper case, but with the killer from part one - who was a child murderer. That's where Capone got mixed up. Like I said, understandable given that this final part skips between 1983 and 1974 several times, without any clear guide for the audience.
-
that as a Britisher, I might not be able to seperate awareness of the history of this from the dramatisation that Red Riding represents, so Capone gets a free pass. FOR NOW!!!! ;)
-
Caught a 5+ hours at the IFC Center in New York City a few weeks ago. Much better and more hard-hitting than derivative junk like "Brooklyn's Finest"
-
Sorry but he doesn't get a free pass here; anyone watching 'Red Riding' - whether they know the history or not - can see what the Yorkshire Ripper did. He mutilated and killed prostitutes. To call him a 'child murderer' means that, at best, Capone wasn't paying any attention whatsoever!! 'Red Riding' WAS superb TV, but why should we listen to a review from a man who didn't bother to watch it properly, or at all?
-
The Ripper was active between 1975-1980, FYI.
-
The background to the films (series), is the Yorkshire Ripper investigations (prostitute mrders) and the botched job that the police made. Segment one happens at the time of the initial investigation but actually chronicles the story of a reporters incestigation of child abduction and murder and the police corruption going on in the area. Segment 2 concentrates more on the corruption using an outside police investigation into the botched Ripper investigation as a way into it. Segment 3 goes back to the child abduction/murders and completes the corruption story.
It,s not actually about the Ripper case, which definitely did not involve children. You can see how the confucsion can arise, but anyone actually watching these films would know the differences and should be more careful about how they represent them. -
Incestigation??? Must be Freudian!!
My bad lol. -
Mar 14, 2010 8:21:29 AM CDT
I see that several people have already noticed that glaring erro
by sepulchrave
It IS a bit much to conflate Peter Sutcliffe with the murders that form the central motif in Red Riding. I watched it closely and yet I still think I'd have to watch it again to pick up on all the nuances and convolutions in the plot. Is there a plot? The impression that I got was that the viewer is supposed to be following a series of disparate characters into a morass of darkness and evil.
-
Capone was sucked in by a one-sided, incomplete story -- the real story is far more complex -- do some research
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts