Film Review: Paul (2011)

Paul is a science fiction comedy reuniting British comedy duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in their latest adventure that combines British and American humour and takes the audience on a journey of a close encounter of a different kind!



Paul tells the story of two sci-fi fanatics touring Amercia’s UFO country, where they encounter Paul, an alien on the run from government agents trying to recapture him (voiced by Seth Rogen). Together the trio share a journey to reunite Paul with his mothership and encountering various obstacles and hilarious mishaps along the way, from kidnapping a half blind daughter (played by Kristen Wiig) to dressing up as a cowboy.
Greg Mottola, famously known as director of cult classic Superbad, directs another masterpiece as he combines both American and British humour that is able to be understood by audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. From combining the British play on words performed brilliantly by Pegg and Frost to slapstick moments from Rogen and Wiig to create a comedy that can truly be enjoyed by all.

Simon Pegg’s character of Graeme Willy shows a true change in character, which is very common in roles played by Simon Pegg. At the start of the film the character lacks confidence and belief in himself, but by the end of the film he establishes a dominant presence that allows him to not only be received positively by the audience but get the girl by the end of the story.

Frost -><- Pegg

 

Nick Frost plays Clive Gollings, Graeme’s best friend. This role is again particularly common to the style of characters that Frost has played in his partnership with Simon Pegg. Again Frost plays the sidekick role and used for comical relief within the film however, in contrast to other roles, his character unlike previous roles of being the "idiot" who gets the duo into trouble and says things to frustrate his colleagues, this character of Clive is skeptical of the adventure until the final act of the film in which he becomes a faithful side-kick, a Robin to Pegg’s Batman.



The CGI used to create Paul is not over the top as you would expect for a film of the 21st Century. Instead it focuses on realism, which therefore aids in the audience’s suspension of disbelief and is therefore able to accept the concept that Paul is a walking-talking alien interacting with human characters. The humour that Rogen provides is excellent, playing on common stereotypes not only of aliens that are perceived in science fiction culture, but how aliens are perceived in general. In the film Paul is imprisoned by the government for 60 years and reveals that he is responsible for many of the marvels of the 20th Century. This allows the character of Paul to become more funny as he sheds the common stereotype early in the movie and by the end of the film, the dialogue and attitude that is associated with Paul is almost completely human, which allows the audience to fully engage with the character.

This film pays homage to many science fiction films, from Star Wars to Star Trek, many actions, soundbites and dialogue are implicit or explicit references to the science fiction genre. From modernising the infamous Canteena song from Star Wars IV to casting Sigourney Weaver, famously remembered for her main role within the Alien franchise shows that the writing in this film aims to show appreciation more many of the science-fiction movies that have come before to satisfy not only the contemporary audience that fell in love with Frost and Pegg, due to their success in the films Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, but also acknowledge these films to attract fans of the science fiction genre by creating characters that had a vast knowledge of science fiction and using these sci-fi references not only to enrich their character’s authenticity as science-fiction fans but engage with the audience, in particular fans of the sci-fi genre.

Overall Paul is an overall laugh-out-loud, feel-good and fun-filled film that will have you walking out of the cinema with a smile on your face and nothing but good things to say about it. The characters are entertaining, the story is simple to follow, which allows the story to contain a variety of verbal and visual humour and mishaps in order to keep the audience entertained. In short, Paul is an excellent film that is literally out of this world!

Ideology In Film

Ideology can generally be described as the beliefs and characteristics of a social group. Films can be a historical collection of how American ideology has changed over the course of time, and also how film-makers either express their support or disgust of the American ideology through their films either implicitly or explicitly. As Rodowick stated “anything can be produced in either critical theory or aesthetic practise” (Rodowick, 1995). This post will look at the theory of ideology within cinema and list an example of explicit and implicit ways that directors either support or are against the American ideological system.

The main way to discuss ideology in terms of cinema is through Textual Ideology and Contextual Ideology. Textual Ideology is a way to explicitly express the ideologies of not only the film-maker but of society at the time. Contextual Ideology allows ideologies to be implicitly expressed, as it may oppose the ideologies held by the American culture at the time.
Narrative helps structure or impose the ideologies of the film-maker and explicitly address the audience regarding issues within their culture or society. As Grant states “
Whatever their politics, genre movies are intimately imbricated within larger cultural discourses as well as political ones” (Grant, 2007). For example Born on the Fourth of July explicitly opposes the Vietnam War. Although the film is set after the war, the ideologies that the war was a negative effect on the American culture is brought to attention, also explicitly stating the horror of war. BIBLIOGRAPHY
GOSS, B., 2002. Things Like This Don't Just Happen: Ideology and Paul Thomas Anderson's Hard Eight, Boogie Nights and Magnolia. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 26(2), pp. 171-192
　
GRANT, B., 2007. Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology. London: Wallflower Press

RODOWICK, N., 1988. The Crisis of Political Modernism: Criticism and Ideology in Contemporary Film Theory. USA: University of California

WOLLEN, P., 1972. Signs and Meanings in the Cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

REFERENCES

The film follows the story of Ron Kovic, portrayed by Tom Cruise, and how he joins the Vietnam War through honest intentions of patriotism and honour, only to discover the horror of war, as well as how his personality changes from proud hero to bitter veteran due to the negative reception of the public’s view of the Vietnam War. By basing this on a true story, the film-maker creates empathy for the character, during scenes of his attempt at recovery as well as his downfall in society. The final scene of Ron demonstrating against the Vietnam war addresses the audience and aims to convince them about the horrors of war.

However Ideology of the Spectator is a way to utilise Contextual Ideology and imply meaning behind the actions and dialogue produced by characters within a film. An example of this is The Godfather, which tells of the Corleone crime family. The narrative shows the story of how Michael Corleone (portrayed by Al Pacino) succeeds as Don of the family from his father (portrayed by Marlon Brando). However if this is viewed from a contextual viewpoint it shows how crime can corrupt even the most purest of men.

When Michael is introduced to the audience, he is a war hero who distances himself from his family, stating "that’s my family...it’s not me", however at the end of the film Michael has become so corrupt that he embraces his family’s business and distances himself from his wife Kate instead, stating "Don’t ask me about my business Kate", both metaphorically and physically closing the door to his wife and embracing his new role as Don as shown in the film’s ending.



GRANT, B., 2007. Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology. London: Wallflower Press

RODOWICK, N., 1988. The Crisis of Political Modernism: Criticism and Ideology in Contemporary Film Theory. USA: University of California

The Power Of Mainstream Cinema

When discussing the power of mainstream cinema, this is observing what is referred to as Dominant Cinema, a system of certain characteristics that normally are portrayed in their films. Characteristics such as the utilisation of stars to attract an audience, using producers to allow films to have an extensive budget in which masses of special effects can be created in order to create a “spectacle” which aims to engage the audience and divert them for poor aspects of the film such as actor, cinematography and script, such as Pearl Harbour and Commando.

Pearl Harbour Trailer

Commando Trailer

Therefore two films will be assessed, one for the classic portrayal of Dominant Cinematic qualities and one for Counter Cinematic qualities (how the film goes against Dominant Cinema).



THE ROCK

The Rock is a classic example of Hollywood mainstream, attracting the audience with stars Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage and having powerful producer Jerry Bruckheimer pouring a large budget into the picture to create jaw-dropping action sequences to amaze the audience and draw away their attention of faults within the film such as character establishment, basic storyline and poor dialogue between characters.

Looking at the characteristics of Dominant cinema, this film ticks all the boxes. It uses the genre formula of being an action/adventure film, using highly recognised stars to attract the audience, is a mass production to attract a mass audience. The narrative is very straightforward, which doesn’t allow the audience to critically evaluate the film, character motivation/journey and how characters interact. The constant action hypnotises the audience to merely witnessing a spectacle of explosions, gun fighting and martial arts.

Brecht talks of creating an interaction with the audience, breaking down the fourth wall and not just be an observer. Well The Rock goes against this, we merely observe the action that is being presented before us, not fully engaging with the characters and their objectives throughout the film.

THE HOLE (2001)

The Hole can be seen as Counter Cinema as it goes against this idea of mainstream Hollywood. Being a lower budgeted film, it doesn’t aim to target a mass audience, rather aim to attract a specific audience. It doesn’t utilise the star system as the majority of the cast were unknown actors, aside from famed child actress Thora Birch. Set in one location and having a disrupted narrative makes the audience really engage with the film, critically evaluating the character’s journey and the story in which they are involved in.

Looking at this from a feminist perspective as the main protagonist is female, Liz (played by Thora Birch) and her role within the film is far from the perceived “male gaze” that seems to be the established cinematic stereotype within Hollywood mainstream films. Mulvey says that Hollywood cinema “depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world” (Narine 2010).

As Liz is indeed in control of the situation, she is therefore empowered as opposed to her male counterparts who are theoretically at Liz’s mercy. This goes against the traditional archetype that the man is in control and the women is objectified and often seen to be helpless and fragile, as best portrayed by Frankie (played by Keira Kinghtley), instead she shows independence and the audience relate to her character.

REFERENCES:

• NARINE, N., 2010. Global Trauma and Narrative Cinema Theory, Culture & Society, 27(4), pp. 121-122.
• ARROYO, J., ed., 2000. Action/Spectacle Cinema: A Sight and Sound Reader. revised ed. London: British Film Institute

Women's Cinema: The Contested Screen