Monday 22 September 2014

REVIEW: The Riot Club


The Riot Club is a very nasty film. A surprisingly nasty film, actually. I went into the screening knowing next to nothing about the production, other than the fact that it was based on a critically-acclaimed play, and for about the first half an hour or so I was unimpressed. It opened with a daft 17th Century prologue and it seemed to be glorifying the behaviour of the worst kind of individuals who attend university – the guys who unironically use terms like "shweffing", "sharking", and refer to each other as "legends". But this is Oxford, which has unfortunately become the archetypal symbol of elitist twatishness. A rather outdated trope, really, although the film takes some key measures to undermine this with the presence of, say, Northerners who weren't privately educated. Shocking, I know. Yet for the most part I was under the impression that I would be watching a film about boring old University life, and having been part of that world for a year I wasn't exactly thrilled by the prospect of boorish initiation ceremonies and careless destruction of public property by rich schoolboys.

Oh, but how wrong I was. The film's second act takes us into the very meat of the story, as the key group of students known as the "The Riot Club" go to a country pub for their termly dinner. It's where the story's stage-like origins become apparent, as much of the film is spent hyping this event up as the very height of debauchery, an event which has gotten them banned from almost all the restaurants in the local area. When the schoolboys turn up to the country pub in their tailor-made uniforms it's comical, as it is when their rendition of "God Save the Queen" prompts other pub goers to unexpectedly join in. But as the shots are consumed as the evening wears on, events begin to take a dark turn. I'm not sure when the audience I was with stopped laughing at the schoolboy banter, but I'm sure it was around the point where Natalie Dormer’s high-end prostitute is treated with disdain for not performing an offensive sex act, or when the boys decide to torment Miles' (Max Irons) Northern girlfriend (Holliday Grainger), which borders dangerously close to rape.

The main cast is good, and I'd imagine, much like the youngsters of The History Boys, they’re destined for great things. Douglas Booth makes the biggest impression as unpleasant womaniser Harry, but Irons is good in the main role, and Sam Claflin proves he's far more than a Hunger Games heartthrob as complete bounder Alistair, who somehow managed to make shouting "I'm sick to death of the poor" convincing.

If nothing else, it's an effective parable on the notion of being a passive observer. Miles soon begins to realise what he's landed himself in but refuses to intervene, even when his girlfriend is threatened. He eventually realises his mistake when things become violent, but even then he is accused of wanting to participate in the coolest group on campus and that, by doing nothing, he is equally responsible, which he struggles to deny.

I think the film wants to be more than that, though, since the story is based on the real-life Bullingdon Club, whose former participants include David Cameron, George Osborne, and Boris Johnson, and the inclusion of Tom Hollander as an MP who condones the group's behaviour is perhaps a touch too far. His portrayal seems to imply that the major members of government are part of a secret underground society, the Fight Club of Westminster, and while that might not be very far from the truth I think it's more likely that some students just want to cause chaos on a night out, typically while very, very drunk. I'm not sure I can imagine George Osbourne beating a bartender senseless. But I do think the film succeeds at sending up the privileged upper class, who think they're untouchable, and I think it succeeds as a solid, cinematic adaptation of a play.


★★★½

Thursday 11 September 2014

REVIEW: The Equalizer


Disclaimer: I walked out of The Equalizer about an hour in. The reason? I found it too unpleasant, on multiple levels, and couldn't stomach it. Sorry if that makes me unprofessional, although I'm 99% sure I could guess where it was going. The plot concerns a man with a past (Denzel Washington) who feels compelled to defend the honour of a good-natured prostitute when she is beaten by Russian gangsters. He then takes up the mantle of a warrior of justice and sets out to right the wrongs of his city. Sounds familiar? It's Batman with all the personality and fun taken out of it, Robin Hood without the camp tights. And it's incredibly violent. The execution of a gang of Russians is shot in the style of a music video, so we see a close-up of a corkscrew entering a man's jaw, a shot glass being jammed into another man's eye. Is this entertainment? Washington murmurs a “sorry” after the bloodshed, as if that can make up for the glamorisation of his violence. And the point where I gave up was a scene where a prostitute was strangled by the villain with an unironic tattoo of the devil on his back. THE DEVIL. ON HIS BACK. BECAUSE HE'S THE BAD GUY. DO YOU GET IT?

Seriously, I know that violence is an inseparable element of cinema, and in the right circumstances it can be good fun. Tarantino's made a career out of it, and when watching this I was longing for the arrival of another Taken, which had the good sense not to take itself too seriously. But The Equalizer comes nowhere close, its gratuitous violence made all the more offensive by its pretentions to being something meaningful. Not even Washington can save it. Again, I walked out after an hour, so perhaps I haven't judged the film fairly, but even if the last half an hour contained an extravagant finale complete with explosions, car chases, dance routines et al I'd still ask for my money back.