The Life of David Gale

The second n the series of five requested film reviews looks at Alan Parkers 2003 thriller The Life of David Gale written by Charles Randolph. Admittedly I hadn’t heard of this film until it was requested for this series, but the cast and the subject matter instantly peaked my interest and went into the film with high expectations.

The plot of The Life of David Gale follows Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet) as she is invited to meet David Gale (Kevin Spacey), a former university lecturer and someone who passionately opposes the death penalty, but is now on death row for the murder of Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), another opposed to the death penalty. Bloom is a writer for a newspaper and with only four days left till Gale is executed, is invited to come and conduct an interview with him, but an ulterior motive is quickly revealed as it appears that Gale may be innocent.

The Life of David Gale uses a non-linear narrative, with the first scene being one from much later in the story, and then cutting back to the beginning of the narrative. For the majority of the film we are with Gale before he was convicted, his story is told in 3 parts, each of them begins with an interview with Bloom and then cuts back to the Gale’s past. This kind of structure is the only kind that would have, or could have worked for the this film, as told in a three act structure the “heroine” Bloom would have been introduced too late, and her interest in Gale would have come across as taped on and rushed, but in the form, it is allowed to slowly develop, and appear real.

With The Life of David Gale, there are a number of stand out performances from Spacey, Linney and Winslet. But if one had to chosen it would be Spacey’s portrayal of an innocent man who has accepted that both his own decisions and those of others have lead him to this moment, but still believes he is innocent and that all he wants Bloom to do is restore his reputation so that his young son will read about the real David Gale. Spacey takes the characters from his joyous highs to his deepest drunken lows at ease, beautifully executing Gale’s arc.

The only real weaknesses with the film is reasoning for some of the supporting cast, the most obvious example being Gabrielf Mann’s Zack Stemmons, who although he plays the part brilliantly, appears to only be a prop or device in the story for Bloom to interact with.

Score: ***1/2 (3.5 out of 5)

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

NB: The next five reviews to be featured on this site are ones that have been requested by readers. So feel free to send me a film request.

This weeks film is the 1999 comedy classic South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut, written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who also directed the film. When this film came out I was thirteen and it was the talk of our school, very similar to Terrence and Phillips “Asses of Fire” in the film it self. Also, recently this film was voted 5^th in the all time top 100 funniest film, beating Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Naked Gun films, which shows just how funny this film is. 

The plot of South Park is that following the boys’(Cartman, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Ike’s) paying a homeless man to get them into the ‘R’ rated “Asses of Fire”, and then unleashing some of the language from the film onto, such as “You donkey r*ping sh*t eater”, and countless uses of the word f*ck during a school lesson. Ultimately they are pulled out of their class and their mother brought in, who decide, led by the unrelenting Sheila Broflovski, that it is all Terrence and Phillips fault for the childrens bad language and behaviour, and so want to see them brought to justice. 

The structure of South Park is fairly simple, which moves the plot along quickly, cutting between Cartman, Stan and Kyle trying to help Terrence and Phillip, and Kenny is Hell, observing Satan and Saddam Husseins lovers tiff. Like the best comedies, the plot doesn’t stop for the jokes, they are all intergrated into the plot, which could explain the 78 minute running time. The songs and musical moments of the film don’t side track the plot either, instead they just help add to the comedy as again, the story unfolds around the song.

When it comes to a stand out character in South Park, it is hard to look past Eric Cartman, a character who has taken on seemingly legendary status since the show aired on TV in 1997. Although he losses the ability to curse at a point during the movie, his dialogue before and after that are classic comedy moments, such as “No, I don’t seem to have any Jewish candy” as a way to both hoard his sweet and insult Kyle simultaneously. Also the megaphone scene in the classroom which sets off the whole plot is tear inducingly funny. Although the other characters and well written and undeniably funny, it is Cartman who ultimately steals the show.

The weaknesses for South Park are minimal, any complaints about the animation are lost, as it wouldn’t be the same without that trademark style. Possibly the film could have been stretched out to last longer, even reaching the 90 minute mark, but obviously not at the expense of the tight story and comedy already in the film.

Score: ****(4/5)

Chinatown

The next film to be reviewed in this series is Roman Polanski’s 1974 Film Noir classic Chinatown, written superbly by Robert Towne. It is not only my view that it is “superbly” written, as it is widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest screenplay’s ever written.

The plot of Chinatown follows private detective Jake Gittes(played by Jack Nicholson) as he is hired to follow Hollis Mulwray by his wife, as she suspects him of infidelity. But it is only after Hollis is exposed, and the papers get hold of the information that the real Evelyn Mulwray comes forward and threatens legal action against Gittes. Eventually Evelyn drops the case, and hires Gittes to find the now vanished Hollis Mulwray, this forms the main part of the investigation and the films plot.

The structure as you may have guessed from the introduction is first class, the film moves at a perfect pace with all the turning points and major incidents coming at perfectly planned stages. Make no mistake this is screenwriting of the very highest quality, Towne shows complete and utter confidence and control of the writing and story. Although not strictly a part of a traditional “film structure” discussion, the lack of a truly snapping twist helps the integrity of the film, as the whole film doesn’t rely on this one potential moment for it all to come together.

The character who stands out the most within Chinatown is obviously the protagonist and central character Jake Gittes, who plays the classic detective figure in a similar way to which Harrison Ford did in Blade Runner, albeit 8 years before. However the more obvious comparisons to be made to Bogart’s Phillip Marlowe from The Big Sleep, as the smooth talking intelligent private eye, albeit with more of a weak spot for the ladies. Marlowe, I am sure was some form of influence for Chinatown’s hero.

Weaknesses for, or within Chinatown are indeed few and far between, and most of them are unworthy of mention. Two common criticisms of the film are that it can drag at times, or come across as boring, this however is purely matter of taste, which is more relevant to those viewers with a limited attention span. The second is the lack of big pay-off ending, and again this form of criticism could come about from those who want an obvious and definite ending, something which Chinatown only really hints at.

Score: *****(5/5)