film review (1) Chronicle

Another passion of mine (like, who doesn't have this passion...?) is films. I love them all. The history of film, the technological advancements in flim, the shear size and scale of the production of a film. So I thought, in amongst other blogian tit bits, I would start a film review journal, of sorts.

So here goes number 1: Chronicle.

Chronicle

Chronicle (2012) is a science fiction film directed by Josh Trank with a screenplay by Max Landis. The film explores the lives of three high-school students from Seattle, Andrew (played by Dane DeHaan), his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan), who together chance upon a supernatural source that gives them telekinetic abilities.

The three students come from very different social backgrounds and have very different personalities; in other circumstances they would be unlikely friends, as is shown at the very beginning of the film. Andrew is unpopular in school and has a difficult home-life. His mother is dying of cancer, and his father is physically abusive. He constantly carries a hand-held camera with him to record his thoughts and experiences. The device alienates him from his surroundings. Andrew’s cousin Matt is fairly outgoing and popular and comes from an upper middle class home. Steve is gregarious and popular with his peers. However, as the three play around together with their newfound powers, they form a very close bond. Once they discover their telekinetic abilities and start to develop them, they plan where they want to go after graduation. Andrew says he wants to escape to Tibet. Over time, the students’ powers intensify and, particularly for Andrew, become more destructive. Andrew accidentally kills a rude driver on the road, and Steve is accidentally killed by lightening during a dispute between him and Andrew.

As Andrew’s mother is dying and needs more medication, Andrew robs a gas station for money but causes an explosion that puts him in the hospital seriously wounded. His mother dies while he is in hospital, and when his father visits him to tell him this (and also to blame Andrew for her death), Andrew throws his father across the room and blows out part of the hospital. Andrew flies out of the hospital and drops his father from high in the air, but Matt rushes in to save him. Andrew and Matt fight each other, and Matt eventually kills Andrew. The final scene is of Matt in Tibet, talking into Andrew’s camera and then leaving it running to capture the mountain views, while Matt flies away.

There are several aspects to this film that are innovative. First is its key theme, subtly suggesting a satirical conceit, looking at the Marvel comic fantasy genre that is hugely popular at the moment. Slightly mocking in atmosphere, the low budget feel and metaphoric motifs alluding to the Marvel franchise, gives the look of the film an assertive, arrogant and juvenile quality akin to the three protagonists themselves.

Secondly, the use of POV through the camera was compelling, and perhaps is the key to the producer’s real aim in the script. It is magical how the camera almost becomes like the real protagonist. Throughout the film, the camera’s movement skillfully reflects key turning points in plot. At the beginning, Andrew’s child-like explorations of his new camera toy fits beautifully with the innocent discovery of the trio’s new found powers. The camera is also the way we get a clear picture of his alienated and introverted character. Other people are always saying to him “put the camera away, I’m trying to talk to you,” implying that Andrew is always observing society but is never part of it.

When things get complex, and friction begins to creep in, the camera’s focus shifts around with the individuals who are holding it. Then the camera seems to grow its own legs, watching down from a tree and the like, as if it sees the conflict arising between the three and wants to get out of the line of fire. Occasionally, the director takes some liberties and gives us some shots where the POV abruptly turns to some unnatural gaze, as if the camera seems to lose momentarily its own personality. But in the penultimate scenes, where manic mayhem ensues, the camera takes to its wings and frantically swoops around aka news reporter documentary style.

Thirdly, I believe that the balance of special effects with the ‘home-video’ roughness of reality is ingeniously carried out. This, again, comes across like a stab at Hollywood, where the gratuitous CG eye-candy quality that most blockbuster comic flicks contain is deliberately avoided.  Another method of differing from the Hollywood mold can be seen in the plot itself. This film spends the majority of the narrative in a discovery period, fleshing out the characters step-by-step, as they realize their potential, at the same time as their personalities grow symbiotically. The conclusion to the narrative arc is a return to the beginning, where Matt is back with Andrew’s hand-held camera, in Tibet, where they all planned to travel.

So, if we take the cinematography as a tool for teasing out the producer’s message, what does the camera mean? And does this meaning change? As discussed, it seems the cinematography is the main motif for flowing through scene to scene. Framing shots that seem to differ, or flow, on from previous ones does impart a sense of movement through the journey, as if the cinematography in each scene is developing out of the previous one, along with the developing trios. Essentially, the film begins with the central theme of alienation and inner/outer worlds of the human psyche. The camera alienates. It separates individuals in a very humanistic way, as each person is finding his own feet.

At one point early on in the film, when the three are in the cavernous tunnel that leads them to the source of their powers, Matt asks Andrew if he knows about the Plato's allegory of the cave. This is another clue to the role of the camera throughout. Plato provides a description of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives. These people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing, referring to the shadows as the only link the prisoners get to viewing reality. The camera’s lens can be construed as this shadow, where Andrew, Matt, and Steve can only know true reality by stepping outside of the camera’s focus and thus learn to enter the real world.

But then the camera takes upon more roles, as incidents outside of the trio’s skin become important. Other perspectives seem to pop in and out, as the three start to socialize with other students. The camera changes hands and seems to disappear at moments. In the thunder, lightening and rain scene where Steve is killed, these natural forces seem to be to be linked to the camera, rather than the two in dispute.

The final city scene does go a little off the rails. Andrew’s unstable, angry temperament, given his unjust background, is an essential tool for grabbing the viewer, as it becomes very clear everything is heading towards a devastating conclusion. But when we finally get there, the final city-smashing scene comes off as slightly ludicrous.

All in all, I personally haven’t been able to stop thinking about this film after seeing it. Other films have used the camera’s shifting POV, for example Hamlet (starring Ethan Hawke), Orlando (Tilda Swinton) and the The Blair Witch Project. But Chronicle seems to use it in a more sophisticated way, rather than just scenic contrast. The title also supports the director’s aim. The word chronicle implies an extended account of historical events, sometimes including legendary material, presented in chronological order and without authorial interpretation or comment. And the film does just that. It also adopts a documentary style of recording history, without explicit commentary or opinion.